University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Understanding cross-cultural knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector: an exploratory study

(USC Thesis Other)

Understanding cross-cultural knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector: an exploratory study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Understanding Cross-Cultural Knowledge Sharing in Ghana’s Energy Sector:
An Exploratory Study
By
Eric Obeng-Amoako Edmonds
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Eric Obeng-Amoako Edmonds
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Eric Obeng-Amoako Edmonds certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Anthony Maddox
Marcus Pritchard
Monique Datta, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
Inefficiencies in knowledge sharing between multinational corporations (MNCs) and Indigenous
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) adversely affect the acquisition of technical
expertise, cross-border collaboration, and competitive advantage. Knowledge sharing gaps
impact organizational sustainability, government policymaking, and Indigenous workforce
engagement (Ouakouak & Ouedraogo, 2019; Usman et al., 2019). Current knowledge sharing
literature highlights the phenomena's urgency and complexity as they occur within organizations
and their subsidiaries (Fang et al., 2010). A significant yet unexplored aspect remains knowledge
sharing between organizations, MNCs, and SMEs, where the SMEs are both critical contributors
to local economies and the points of exchange for MNCs operating in the host nations. As a
theoretical framework, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory unearths the individual and
environmental factors in cross-cultural knowledge sharing, specifically for MNCs and SMEs in
Ghana’s energy sector. Ecological differences influence the quality of interactions and the
propensity for knowledge sharing to occur. Thus, this study advances a perspective that is
necessary to understand the factors that either support or hinder interorganizational knowledge
sharing in cross-cultural knowledge settings.
Keywords: cross-cultural knowledge transfer, globalization, international management,
knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, organizational competency, organizational culture

v
Dedication
To my wife Julliet, and sons Akrofi and Amofa, for enduring my intellectual curiosity and
enjoying unusual eureka moments.

vi
Acknowledgements
Writing is often a solitary adventure, but this dissertation process has been incredibly
collaborative, and I owe a debt of gratitude to many along the way. Dr. Monique Datta, Dr.
Anthony Maddox, and Dr. Marc Pritchard, in your own ways, challenged my assumptions in a
way that refined my work as a thinker and researcher. At the University of Southern California, I
have a long list of professors to thank for bringing me along on this journey, including Dr. Maria
Ott, Dr. Jennifer Philips, Dr. Stephanie Phillips, and Dr. Courtney Malloy. All of you encouraged
me to trust the process, and I am grateful for the chance to have learned from you.
To all the lifelong friends I have made in Cohort 21, I will always cherish the laughter,
friendship, and courage to constructively question our positionality and interrogate systems in
this vortex of academic pursuit. Dr. Eddu Oparie-Addoh, Nana Asare, David Soliman,
Emmanuel Smart, and Kofi Bankas, thank you for being my brothers and confidantes every step
along the way. Demetra Page, Myesha House, Dwaine Thompson, Ben and Debbie Boampong,
Marian Newman, Paula Marsh, and Professor Andoh Baidoo always encouraged me to reach
higher. From Josiah Osei and George Owusu, I had the chance to learn from their examples in
leadership and entrepreneurship to pursue my own.
My parents and family, I acknowledge with deep gratitude. My brothers Kojo Bonti
Amoako and Kyei Amoako, I was barely six years old when you helped nurture an inquisitive
mindset by cutting old newspapers to recreate our versions of news stories. That was when I fell
in love with anthropology and learning. Finally, I wish C.S. Akyeampong, my favorite high
school literature teacher was here to critique my dissertation just as I had been privileged to have
her encourage my work through the years, but her memory will live in every work I do.
I thank God for the gift of life, the grace for the journey, and the strength to Fight On!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. x
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 4
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 5
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 5
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 9
Knowledge Sharing Theory ................................................................................................ 9
Declarative, Procedural, and Conceptual Knowledge ...................................................... 15
Tacit and Explicit Knowledge .......................................................................................... 18
MNCs, Globalization, and Opportunity Beyond Borders................................................. 22
From Ethnocentrism to Cultural Competence .................................................................. 32
The Role of SMEs in Ghana’s Energy Sector .................................................................. 35
Catalysts for Change: Managers, Stakeholders, and Conduits......................................... 40
Theoretical Framework: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory.......................... 44
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 49
Summary........................................................................................................................... 53

viii
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 55
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 55
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 56
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 57
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 58
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 60
Ethical Considerations...................................................................................................... 61
Summary........................................................................................................................... 62
Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 63
Participants........................................................................................................................ 63
Thematic Analysis ............................................................................................................ 65
Findings for Research Question 1..................................................................................... 67
Discussion for Research Question .................................................................................... 87
Findings for Research Question 2..................................................................................... 88
Discussion for Research Question 2 ............................................................................... 102
Summary......................................................................................................................... 103
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 105
Findings........................................................................................................................... 105
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 114
Recommendations........................................................................................................... 117
Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................... 120
Recommendation for Future Research............................................................................ 121
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 124
References................................................................................................................................... 126
Appendix A: Interview Protocol................................................................................................. 145

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Study Participant Demographic Characteristics ............................................................. 64
Table 2: Thematic Analysis with Coding and Themes.................................................................. 66
Table 3: Research Question 1 Themes.......................................................................................... 67
Table 4: Role of Trust in Knowledge Sharing Process ................................................................. 68
Table 5: Research Question 2 Themes.......................................................................................... 88
Table 6: Perceived Role of the Petroleum Commission ............................................................... 96

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory.............................................................. 45
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 53

xi
List of Abbreviations
ASEM Asia-Europe Meeting
AU African Union
ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States
ERRC Emerging Resource Rich Country
EU European Union
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
GDP Gross Domestic Product
IRB Institutional Review Board
ITR Interview Transcript Review
MNC Multinational Corporation
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
OPEC Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
PC Petroleum Commission
PPP Public Private Partnership
SME Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise
USC University of Southern California
WHO World Health Organization

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Inefficiencies in knowledge sharing between multinational corporations (MNCs) and
Indigenous small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) adversely affect the acquisition of
technical expertise, cross-border collaboration, and competitive advantage. Knowledge sharing is
the exchange of task-related expertise between individuals with the objective to create new and
useful knowledge (Ahmad & Karim, 2019; Krumova & Milanezi, 2014). Consequently,
knowledge sharing gaps impact organizational performance, government policymaking, and
Indigenous workforce engagement (Ouakouak & Ouedraogo, 2019; Usman et al., 2019). As a
result of globalization and interdependent economic systems, organizations seek competitive
advantage beyond geographical borders (Harzing et al., 2016). However, ecological differences
between foreign corporations and their Indigenous counterparts influence the quality of
interactions, and the propensity for knowledge sharing (Ouakouak & Ouedraogo, 2019; Shah et
al., 2021).
Researchers have highlighted the prevalence, urgency, and complexity of knowledge
sharing in general, as they occur within organizations and their subsidiaries in host nations.
However, Fang et al. (2010) noted limitations to the existing knowledge sharing construct,
including its narrow focus on MNCs and their subsidiaries, expatriates’ performance and
adjustment, and the need for in-depth qualitative analysis to enrich understanding. An
unexplored aspect remains knowledge sharing between MNCs and SMEs, a phenomenon
prevalent in Ghana, and as other African countries where SMEs are vital economic contributors
and critical interface points for the MNCs operating in the local economy. As a theoretical
framework for the study, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory explains the complex
interaction between an individual’s development and the unique influences of environmental

2
characteristics (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Crawford, 2020). Thus, this study advances a necessary
perspective to understand the antecedents, factors, and barriers that support or hinder crosscultural knowledge sharing. The study evaluates executive leadership in SMEs as a primary
stakeholder group in the context of knowledge sharing between their organizations and MNCs
operating in the energy sector.
Background of the Problem
In pursuit of competitive advantages in a knowledge-driven global economy,
organizations seek opportunities beyond geographical borders with Indigenous enterprises as
local partners. Foreign MNCs partner with Indigenous SMEs for opportunities in emerging
economies (Ouakouak & Ouedraogo, 2019; Shah et al., 2021), but the success hinges on mutual
knowledge exchange (Areed et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2021; Yang, 2018). In this context,
MNCs operating across international borders include a workforce from different countries
defined by linguistic, religious, social, cultural, and political backgrounds (Stan & Vlad, 2018).
However, distinct environmental influences shape individuals’ engagement, communication, and
knowledge constructs, and subsequently affect relationships and organizational performance
(Lau & Ng, 2014). Moreover, Usman et al. (2019) contend that knowledge gaps between MNCs
and SMEs hinder their collective ability to respond to market factors, resulting in knowledge
sharing inefficiencies that hinder productivity (Nguyen et al., 2021; Usman et al., 2019), create
conflict and distrust (Abugre & Debrah, 2019), and stifle the development of expertise in local
environments (Akhavan et al., 2015). Researchers have established the value of intra-firm
knowledge sharing as the type that occurs within organizations, despite the gap related to interfirm knowledge sharing that occurs between independent organizations (Fang et al., 2010;

3
Loebbecke et al., 2016), despite the critical role of SMEs in international business and the influx
of MNCs for business collaboration in host nations.
The energy sector is knowledge-intensive and relies on the exchange of accrued
knowledge and intellectual property (Foley et al., 2021). As such, the inefficiencies described
above hinder mutual learning and international business partnerships (Akhavan et al., 2015; Shah
et al., 2021; Usman et al., 2019). As an example, COVID-19 partially shut down Ghana's energy
sector as too few SMEs could replace MNC's technical knowledge (Ghana Ministry of Finance,
2021; Zelengra et al., 2021). Losses over $700 million in the sector’s revenue, unemployment,
and service company shutdowns, as well as threats of social unrest, beckoned an unmistakable
urgency to address this persistent and debilitating problem (African Union, 2020; Ghana
Ministry of Finance, 2021; Wheeler et al., 2020). Thus, the underlying goal of this study is to
advance an efficient knowledge sharing framework critical to mutually beneficial and sustainable
competitive advantages for both MNCs and Indigenous enterprises.
Statement of the Problem
Research shows that knowledge is a strategic resource for organizations engaged in crossborder operations to maintain their competitive edge. Fang et al. (2010) concur, reiterating that
successful organizations leverage knowledge sharing and subsequent transfer to optimize
organizational learning, innovation, and competitive advantage (Ouakouak & Ouedraogo, 2019;
Usman et al., 2019). Owing to global economic interdependence, foreign MNCs interface with
Indigenous SMEs as local partners; however, differences in beliefs, sociocultural norms,
geographical predispositions, and established social structures impact localization strategies and
operations (Fong Boh et al., 2012; Harzing et al., 2016). The individual and environmental
differences result in divergent expectations, the loss of financial and human capital investments

4
for both MNCs and SMEs, inadvertently cultivating sociocultural tensions and conflict among
their partners and workforce.
Despite the extensive literature on knowledge sharing, few extend the discussion beyond
MNCs and their subsidiaries, expatriates’ performance, and intra-firm adjustment. Even fewer
address the inter-firm exchange of knowledge in cross-border contexts (Ellis et al., 2015; Fang et
al., 2010) and specifically in Ghana’s energy sector. Furthermore, research is often limited to
dominant groups and Western companies, thereby advancing the realities of MNCs while
diminishing the role of Indigenous enterprises as equal contributors and knowledge co-creators
(Blazejewski, 2009; Usman et al., 2019). This study extends the current literature on knowledge
sharing and organizational performance by developing an interorganizational framework to
understand the antecedents, factors, and barriers between organizations in cross-cultural
contexts.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to understand the factors that affect knowledge sharing
between MNCs and SMEs in cross-cultural settings. This exploratory study examines the role of
individuals and the environment in knowledge sharing between MNCs and SMEs to address
competency gaps in Ghana’s energy sector. Two questions outline a path for the research and
provide a framework to explore the relationships among the individual, organization, and
environment.
1. What individual factors affect cross-cultural knowledge sharing between MNCs and
SMEs in Ghana’s energy sector?
2. What environmental factors affect cross-cultural knowledge sharing between MNCs
and SMEs in Ghana’s energy sector?

5
Significance of the Study
Knowledge sharing inefficiency adversely affects an organization’s competitiveness and
investment, government job creation initiatives, and Indigenous workforce engagement in
international partnerships. While research underscores the significance of knowledge sharing to
competitive advantage and business success (Ouakouak & Ouedraogo, 2019; Usman et al.,
2019), the interfaces between international companies remain unexplored. This study treats
foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs as independent entities. With an increasingly
interdependent global economy (Harzing et al., 2016), understanding ecological, social, and
cultural differences ensures efficient collaboration between operating entities (Ballor & Yildirim,
2020; Stan & Vlad, 2019; Usman et al., 2019). A close study of Ghana’s energy sector can aid in
understanding similar phenomena in other African countries. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems theory underpins this study, which extends the current literature on knowledge
management and organizational performance by traversing typical concepts to develop an
interorganizational framework. The study’s results create value for organizations to improve
effectiveness and competitiveness and for government agencies to incorporate understanding into
economic growth policymaking.
Definition of Terms
This section will provide an overview of the terminology used in the research. This will
include operational definitions of the key constructs.
• Conceptual knowledge refers to the understanding of underlying principles and the
interrelationships between discrete ideas and facts (Sarwar & Trumpower, 2015).

6
• Cultural competence refers to a consistent set of behaviors and attitudes that enable
individuals to gain awareness of, and appreciation for, cultural diversity to function
effectively in cross-cultural contexts (Azzopardi & McNeill, 2016).
• Declarative knowledge refers to knowledge of factual information including specific
facts, definitions, and concepts (Sarwar & Trumpower, 2015).
• Developing country refers to a country with narrow industrial bases that follow the
International Monetary Fund classification. The term appears interchangeably with
Third World, underdeveloped economies, developing economies, frontier markets,
emerging economies, and emerging markets (Cuervo-Cazurra, 2012).
• Ethnocentrism refers to a kind of ethnic or cultural group egocentrism, which
involves a belief in the superiority of a group, including its values and practices
(Bizumic, 2015).
• Explicit knowledge refers to knowledge that specifies how to accomplish specific
tasks, and the ways to articulate and communicate such knowledge to others (MuñozPascual & Galende, 2020).
• Knowledge management refers to the process of collecting, creating, storing,
transferring, and sharing knowledge (Al Mansoori et al., 2021).
• Knowledge sharing refers to the exchange of task-related expertise between
individuals (Ahmad & Karim, 2019).
• Knowledge transfer refers to the transmission of knowledge to specific settings for
organizational performance (Zheng, 2017).
• L.I. 2204 refers to Ghana’s petroleum regulations formally recognized as Local
Content and Local Participation, 2013 (Petroleum Commission, 2015).

7
• Local content refers to the percentage or quantum of personnel, locally produced
materials, financing, and goods and services rendered in the oil and gas industry value
chain measured in monetary terms (Petroleum Commission, 2015).
• Multinational corporation (MNC) refers to firms that hold assets or employees in
more than one country and are involved in foreign direct investment (Stan & Vlad,
2018).
• Procedural knowledge refers to knowledge of practical processes and rules required
to perform a specific task (Sarwar &Trumpower, 2015).
• Small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) refers to independent organizations
registered as a micro business, small business, or medium business, with a relatively
small number of employees and market share, as well as assets and revenues that do
not exceed country-specific thresholds (Augustine & Asiedu, 2017).
• Tacit knowledge refers to non-codified knowledge that largely exists in the minds of
individuals (Muñoz-Pascual & Galende, 2020).
Organization of the Study
Five chapters form this study. The current chapter provides an overview, including key
concepts and terminologies associated with knowledge sharing in relation to MNCs and SMEs.
The chapter also provides a background and statement of the problem, limitations, and
delimitations. Chapter Two provides an in-depth review of the current literature on knowledge
sharing and central contributing themes, including globalization, MNCs, and SMEs in the
context of Ghana’s energy sector. The discussion also includes Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems theory as a theoretical framework. Chapter Three details the research methodology,
including assumed influences for participant selection, data collection, and analysis. Chapter

8
Four presents the study’s data and the results assessed and analyzed based on thematic analyses
of stakeholder interviews. Chapter Five presents recommendations based on data and relevant
literature for understanding the antecedents, factors, and barriers to knowledge sharing,
specifically in Ghana’s energy sector.

9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter reviews relevant literature to understand the individual and environmental
factors that affect MNC and SME cross-cultural knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector.
Guided by the research questions outlined in Chapter One, the ensuing literature syntheses
organize this research into four parts. The first part reviews the literature on knowledge sharing
to understand its key constructs, research trends, and gaps. The second part discusses the broad
topics undergirding this study as antecedents to efficient knowledge sharing. The third part
outlines Ghana’s energy sector and the local content policy that drives international collaboration
between Indigenous and foreign enterprises. Finally, the fourth part discusses the methodological
framework as a lens to examine the role of the individual and environment in constructing and
assigning meaning to events and behavior. The SMEs are (a) legally registered with Ghana’s
Petroleum Commission; (b) directly engaged with MNCs in providing a product or service; and
(c) owned 100% by Indigenous Ghanaians.
Knowledge Sharing Theory
Various researchers have contributed to the literature on knowledge sharing to identify
ways to enhance organizational performance and learning. Researchers recognized the essential
role of knowledge sharing within organizations as vital to business management processes (Ellis
et al., 2015; Ferraris et al., 2017), innovation and development of technical expertise (Asrar-ulHaq & Anwar, 2016; Obeidat et al., 2016; Usman et al., 2019), and access to new markets
(Ouakouak & Ouedraogo, 2019; Usman et al., 2019). An in-depth analysis of the key constructs
builds on existing literature and deepens the understanding of the individual and environmental
factors that affect knowledge sharing.

10
Understanding Contexts and Constructs
The different definitions of knowledge and knowledge sharing inform the way
individuals both interpret and apply them in organizational settings. Knowledge sharing is the
exchange of task-related expertise between individuals to create new and useful knowledge
(Ahmad & Karim, 2019; Krumova & Milanezi, 2014). For organizations, knowledge is an
invaluable and strategic resource for gaining and sustaining competitive advantage (Fang et al.,
2010). Researchers including Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar (2016) further demonstrated its
importance in continuous innovation, recognizing its fundamental role in knowledge–driven
enterprises and industries.
Researchers place knowledge sharing within a broader knowledge of management
literature as a process for organizations or individuals to use knowledge efficiently within a
setting. According to Mcinerney and Koenig (2011), knowledge management’s prominence in
literature emerged in the 1990s, ultimately defining it as a process that helps an enterprise
capture, disseminate, and effectively use the knowledge acquired. Knowledge management is the
combination of people, technology, and processes that gathers, stores, and uses knowledge in an
organizational setting (Al Mansoori et al., 2021; Brätianu, 2019). Both Sefidanosky (2018) and
Massingham (2014) build on this definition by stressing organizations’ management of such
knowledge as a critical driver of productivity, efficiency, and survival. Thus, for organizations
implementing knowledge management strategies, efficiency in such processes is the principal
objective to achieve the desired goal.
A key point of departure is the definition of knowledge, which affects how individuals
and organizations leverage it in organizational settings. According to Rivera et al. (2021), the
various definitions maintain overarching importance in organizational settings. Instead, they

11
recognize knowledge as an articulation of a set of experiences. Mahdi et al. (2011) defined
knowledge as encapsulating facts and specific understanding. Similarly, Bolsani and Bratianu
(2018) emphasized belief and context in conceptualizing knowledge. Equally important is the
distinction between data and information, as Mahdi et al. concluded that data is devoid of
context, but given meaning and context, it becomes information.
While researchers classify knowledge differently, a fundamental and consistent view in
literature is that knowledge sharing among individuals is a criterion for constructing new
knowledge (Kim et al., 2020). As such, knowledge results from information and data used in
specific contexts. Mcinerney and Koenig (2011) supported this argument, noting that knowledge
leads to effective operations, efficient processes, and quality responses to market changes. The
knowledge type is technical, related to the abilities to operate machinery, design engineering
mechanisms, and perform complex tasks related to the exploration and production of petroleum,
natural gas, and other related hydrocarbons. Two relevant constructs are (a) procedural,
declarative, and conceptual knowledge; and (b) tacit and explicit knowledge. The subsequent
sections discuss both.
Human interaction and relationships fundamentally drive knowledge sharing behavior.
Rivera et al. (2021) concluded that reciprocal interactions developed by individuals in any
context and their “behaviors, thoughts, feelings, knowledge and duties are necessary to produce
learning and new knowledge” (p. 1172). For technical organizations, especially from different
social and cultural backgrounds, the efficient acquisition and dissemination of knowledge helps
to develop expertise and enhance performance. Researchers conceptualize knowledge sharing
differently despite the consensus that it is essential to competitive advantage and developing
human capital (Anwar, 2016; Asrar-ut-Haq & Anwar, 2016). Knowledge sharing provides

12
specific task-related information and know-how required to solve problems and develop novel
ideas. Similarly, Wiewiora et al. (2013) conceptualized knowledge sharing as the transfer of
outlined experiences, information, and expert insights into practices, thereby sharing both the
know-how and the know-why. Other researchers emphasize the individual cooperative desire to
share knowledge (Azema & Jafari, 2016). Similarly, Villamizar Reyes et al. (2014) viewed
knowledge sharing and collecting as a reciprocal process. Hashim and Tan (2015) concurred that
knowledge is only valuable and beneficial when used by individuals through reciprocal sharing.
A vital distinction worth clarification is between knowledge sharing and knowledge
transfer. Researchers use these two terms interchangeably (Massingham, 2014; Zheng, 2017);
however, it is important to distinguish between knowledge sharing, which focuses on the
acquisition, creation, and exchange of knowledge, and knowledge transfer, which focuses on
translating knowledge to specific knowledge settings for organizational performance. Knowledge
transfer to impact organizational performance is evidence of efficient knowledge sharing.
According to Zheng (2017), knowledge contains a cognitive capacity unlike a tangible
commodity that individuals distribute or physically exchange. An individual must possess the
knowledge intended for transfer, while the other party must possess the cognitive ability and
desire to acquire it. Fait et al. (2019) agreed and further emphasized the process of knowledge
sharing as a complex phenomenon influenced by antecedent individual and environmental
factors.
Knowledge sharing occurs within and between organizations. Fang et al. (2010) noted
limitations to the existing knowledge sharing construct, including its narrow focus on MNCs and
their subsidiaries, expatriates’ performance, and adjustment. According to Al-Busaidi and
Olfman (2017), interorganizational knowledge sharing is especially critical in knowledge-

13
intensive sectors. The conceptual definition of interorganizational knowledge sharing is a
mechanism facilitating the seamless dissemination of personal and organizational knowledge
between independent entities. Wulf and Butel (2017) reiterated these phenomena as collaborative
relationships that ultimately help organizations to compete sustainably.
Links between Knowledge Sharing and Competitive Advantage
Knowledge sharing does not inherently generate the innovation required to gain a
competitive advantage. Zhoa et al. (2020) suggested that while knowledge sharing can enhance
individual creativity, it is open to whether it always leads to innovation. Zhoa and colleagues
pointed to two opposite views: (a) the assumption that knowledge sharing guarantees
improvement in performance by eliminating repeated learning; and (b) the notion that knowledge
sharing can lead to organizations disclosing necessary technologies or competitive advantages
that may, in turn, harm their organization. Regarding the latter outlook, it is reasonable to infer
that knowledge sharing can lead to less innovation if it disincentivizes individuals to pursue
novel solutions. However, despite this critique, Zhoa et al. agreed that knowledge sharing grants
individuals and organizations access to various information sources. For example, Yang et al.
(2018) concluded that knowledge sharing plays a role in product and process innovation.
However, while their findings reiterate the need for a collaborative culture, especially between
partner organizations, the researchers did not establish causality between knowledge sharing
behaviors and innovative capacity.
Despite organizational knowledge considered a significant source for developing
sustainable competitive advantage, it has detractors, primarily when it extends beyond an
organizational unit. For example, efficient interaction and communication are critical for
successful strategic and joint venture partnerships (Fang et al., 2010). According to Loebbecke et

14
al. (2016), collaboration demands cooperation among partners, and exchanging knowledge is
critical to the success of joint ventures. The benefits of such inter-firm collaborations include
knowledge co-creation, product innovation, and organizational learning (Usman et al., 2019).
However, as organizations engage with multiple companies, most outside the boundary of any
one strategic partnership, a real threat exists of divulging a partner’s proprietary information to
another company, even a competitor. Researchers van Fenema and Loebbecke (2014)
highlighted the challenge of sharing knowledge while protecting proprietary information.
Loebbecke et al. (2016) called this a strategic paradox for interorganizational collaboration.
Nevertheless, opportunities exist for increased collaboration with no threat to competitive
advantages.
Unique individual and environmental characteristics influence knowledge sharing.
Nguyen et al. (2021) and Zheng (2017) posited that organizational and group factors affect
knowledge sharing, but at its core, by individual-level factors. Zheng advances critical
characteristics of knowledge sharing as (a) influenced by individual behavior; (b) voluntary and
proactive; (c) controlled by environmental systems; and (d) mutually beneficial. For any business
organization or partnership, the willingness of individuals to share their knowledge reduces
operational costs, increases process efficiencies, generates innovation, and improves
organizational performance (Areed et al., 2020; Azema & Jafari, 2016; Usman et al., 2019).
However, according to Asrar-ut-Haq and Anwar (2016), experiences between individuals affect
how they collaborate in any setting.
The perspective elaborated by Zheng (2017) aligns with research conducted by Nguyen et
al. (2021) that leans on social cognitive theory to explain how individuals, social organizations,
and cultures influence knowledge sharing behavior. Social cognitive theorists propose that

15
environmental elements often influence an individual’s behavior (Bandura, 1986). However,
Nguyen et al. delve deeper to identify specific organizational and social factors that facilitate
knowledge sharing behavior and identify absorptive capacity, trust, and social interaction as
three critical influencers. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory delineates the different
levels of influence on an individual to help gain a deeper understanding of a specific context.
Declarative, Procedural, and Conceptual Knowledge
Three different knowledge types affect organizational performance, each serving a
critical function in preserving organizational knowledge. Organizational performance is the
extent to which a company has improved, added value to its operations, and increased its overall
performance in a market segment (Maletič et al., 2016). The three types of knowledge,
declarative, procedural, and conceptual, affect knowledge sharing between organizations and
subsequent knowledge transfer to job performance.
Declarative knowledge is the knowledge of factual information and an individual’s
understanding of how an element works. It includes specific facts, definitions, and concepts
(Sarwar & Trumpower, 2015). Declarative knowledge is “knowing what” (Huaulme et al., 2022,
p.74) and focuses on classifying, categorizing, and labeling (Hurrell, 2021). For example,
documented knowledge of equipment, including valves, pumps, drilling rigs, and refineries in
crude oil production, represents declarative knowledge. Thus, an individual will know the
requirements to extract crude oil and transport it to refineries. Individuals can retrieve isolated
facts without understanding the relationship between equipment and facts (Rittle-Johnson &
Schneider, 2015). As such, researchers conclude, despite declarative knowledge being an
essential basis for the structure of other types of knowledge, individuals acquire it independent of
its context and relationship with other facts (Sarwar & Trumpower, 2015).

16
Procedural knowledge is “knowing how” (Huaulme et al., 2022, p.74). Procedural
knowledge extends the knowledge of isolated facts to understanding the processes required to
accomplish a specific task. Sarwar and Trumpower (2015) believed this knowledge encapsulates
the capacity to utilize rules and processes to act. For example, in addition to the definitional
knowledge of valves, pumps, drilling rigs, and refineries in crude oil production, procedural
knowledge describes adherence to the best equipment installation method to achieve the desired
result. This knowledge understands the relationship between the equipment and the intended
processes. Sarwar and Trumpower assert that procedural knowledge differs from declarative
knowledge by its experiential nature.
Conceptual knowledge encompasses understanding the principles and the
interrelationships between discrete ideas and facts. It is “knowing why” (Huaulme et al., 2022, p.
74). Hurrell (2021) described conceptual knowledge as an interconnected web of relationships.
This conceptualization builds on Goldman et al.’s (1997) definition of “a connected web of
information in which the linking relationships are as important as the pieces of discrete
information that are linked” (p. 4). Critical to conceptual knowledge is combining knowledge of
facts and concepts with new or prior knowledge to enhance understanding (Sarwar &
Trumpower, 2015). For example, an individual working in the energy sector may not only be
able to describe valves, pumps, drilling rigs, and refineries in crude oil production or know their
assigned processes but will understand the intricate relationships between every component.
Conceptual understanding in this context will enable an individual to apply the knowledge in
different geologic formations, anticipate problems in the drilling process, and have the ability to
make inferences based on different scenarios. Both Rittle-Johnson and Schneider (2015) argued
that irrespective of the importance of possessing procedural and declarative knowledge,

17
conceptual knowledge gives an individual the ability to make meaningful inferences and transfer
the knowledge for use in different contexts. Researchers consider conceptual knowledge a higher
form of knowledge (Hurrell, 2021) because operations using conceptual knowledge are more
effective than declarative or procedural ones (Sarwar & Trumpower, 2015).
Muñoz-Pascual and Galende (2020) implied that unique knowledge and understanding of
any activity's intricate principles enable competitive advantage. With conceptual knowledge,
exchanging declarative or procedural knowledge will lead to optimum outcomes in competitive
advantage and performance. However, declarative and procedural knowledge does not
understand complex relationships between equipment and processes, thus limiting efficient
knowledge sharing. Between organizations, the gap in understanding limits the ability to create
value (Hurrell, 2021; Rittle-Johnson & Schneider, 2015; Sarwar & Trumpower, 2015). The
exchange of conceptual knowledge ultimately improves the knowledge required for value-added
performance-enhancing actions.
Acquiring knowledge and competency in one context can only be beneficial in another
with conceptual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge provides both a structure and framework that
facilitates understanding and a vehicle to foster knowledge transfer by making connections in
unique contexts (Hurrell, 2021; Richland et al., 2012). According to Sarwar and Trumpower
(2015), one distinguishing feature of conceptual knowledge is combining any knowledge with
existing or prior knowledge to generate meaning. Hurrell (2021) further observed that conceptual
knowledge supports procedural knowledge, i.e., rather than memorizing facts or practicing
procedures, it develops an understanding of interrelationships, which reinforces the
comprehension of meaning. The absence of conceptual understanding limits knowledge sharing
(Richland et al., 2012).

18
Declarative and procedural knowledge sharing can occur more efficiently and, in less
time, than conceptual knowledge sharing. Park et al. (2022) contend that international joint
ventures are ideal platforms for knowledge exchange owing to the need to acquire and share
information for mutual success. Developing an essential capacity to follow a sequence of steps or
knowledge or rules for performing a task limits the complexity of task performance (RittleJohnson & Schneider, 2015). However, the acquisition of conceptual knowledge requires time to
integrate discrete concepts that are applicable in myriad contexts (Hurrell, 2021). Understanding
the broader context and the ability to generalize in different contexts and subsequent job
performance enables knowledge sharing to enhance performance and competitive advantages.
In conclusion, declarative, procedural, and conceptual knowledge are essential in
knowledge sharing, as they all comprise different components of a knowledge acquisition
process (Hurrell, 2021; Rittle-Johnson & Schneider, 2015). An individual’s knowledge
acquisition and awareness of this knowledge play a central role in the learning process and
knowledge sharing between individuals and different organizations. Effective knowledge sharing
requires understanding complex relationships to facilitate meaning making and develop
expertise, rather than the memorization of isolated facts or an awareness of processes and rules
(Hurrell, 2021). Thus, well-organized dissemination of different knowledge types coupled with a
process to achieve maximum productivity from the resulting knowledge facilitates efficient
knowledge sharing.
Tacit and Explicit Knowledge
Two ways of classifying knowledge according to its nature are tacit knowledge and
explicit knowledge. Knowledge can be expressed and stored in words and numeric form, or exist
in intuition, values, images, beliefs, and experiences (Allameh et al., 2014). Extensive theoretical

19
research of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing confirms both as necessary prerequisites to
improved organizational performance and competitive advantage (Ang et al., 2022). Innovation
is an organization’s ability to develop new products or open new markets through changes in
behavior, process, or strategic orientation (Park et al., 2022). Researchers recognize tacit and
explicit knowledge sharing as critical antecedents of improved organizational performance
(Allameh et al., 2014; Noruzy et al., 2013).
Explicit knowledge is expressed, articulated, or codified. It is organized, tangible or
intangible, as a source of competitive advantage and of the creation, retention, and critical
dissemination of knowledge within and between organizations (Allameh et al., 2014). MuñozPascual and Galende (2020) described explicit knowledge as documents and formal work
processes generally recorded or easily stored in a readily retrievable and valuable format. Energy
sectors are more effective in capturing explicit knowledge through technical documentation in
industry guidelines and project specifications (Grover & Froese 2016; Park et al., 2022). For
example, electronic and paper-based documents including agreements, contracts, project
specifications, procedures, and manuals are explicit knowledge (Sparkling & Dogra, 2021). By
virtue of its codified nature, either in print, or electronic media, this type of knowledge is
communicable formally and systematically in the form of symbols or through organized systems
like emails, meetings, or documents (Park et al., 2022).
Tacit knowledge, also described as implicit knowledge, resides in an individual’s mind
and experiences, and is neither codified nor documented. Tacit knowledge manifests through its
application and practice; as such, it is difficult to articulate or quantify (Ang et al., 2022; MuñozPascual & Galende, 2020). As such, it is difficult to exchange through codifying and
incorporating into any process. Sparkling and Dogra (2021) noted identifying tacit knowledge as

20
a first step to capturing it. Typically, such knowledge is challenging to articulate and only
expandable through interaction and experience. For example, in the energy sector, repeated
performance of specific tasks generates tacit knowledge.
As tacit knowledge resides in individuals’ minds through experiences and intuitions, it is
essential in cross-cultural collaboration. According to Zeng et al. (2015), tacit knowledge sharing
requires social interactions between organizations and individuals. Researchers contend that
culture influences attitudes toward tacit and explicit knowledge sharing (Castaneda & Ramírez,
2021; Stojanovic-Aleksic et al., 2019; Zhang, 2011). Because opinions, beliefs, language, and
expectations shape culture, it creates a fundamental framework through which individuals assign
meaning to any phenomenon (Traczynska & Kunecka, 2018). Lee et al. (2016) call this clan-like.
The researchers suggest that culture can instead be a mediator in knowledge sharing.
Sharing tacit knowledge is inherently challenging, especially in contexts where unique
environmental constructs shape individual experiences. These environmental differences affect
both the individual desire and ability to share and the ability and desire to comprehend. Tacit
knowledge lends itself to subjective interpretation as it encapsulates both the knowledge and the
accompanying epistemology (Castaneda & Ramírez, 2021; Stojanovic-Aleksic et al., 2019). For
example, researchers have concluded that a significant relationship exists between individual
experience and reliance on tacit knowledge (Sparkling & Dogra, 2021). Thus, there is a higher
reliance on explicit knowledge in a nascent SME industry where new entrants perform most of
the tasks. By its nature, codified and formal documentation including procedures, manuals, and
specifications effectively facilitates knowledge sharing, without subjective interpretation of its
meaning (Castaneda & Ramírez, 2021). Irrespective of the individuals’ experience, they are
more likely to comprehend explicit than tacit knowledge.

21
Park et al. (2022) recognized the need for an in-depth analysis of tacit and explicit
knowledge in international joint ventures, adding that the intangibility of tacit knowledge makes
it difficult to measure and conceptualize. As with most skilled trades, individuals acquire a
plethora of knowledge through prior experience and training. Persky and Robinson (2017) stated
specific learned skills become instinctive. As a result, it is difficult to effectively reconstruct or
organize that knowledge into a tangible form for other individuals to learn from. Accordingly,
Sparkling and Dogra (2021) emphasized the need to first identify tacit knowledge in practice
before it can be effectively harnessed and exchanged. Organizations can conceal tacit knowledge
much more easily than codified and recorded explicit knowledge. Of its highly personal and
cognitive nature, tacit knowledge can intentionally conceal where one organization thinks
sharing it would jeopardize intellectual property, investment, and competitive advantage (Duan
et al., 2021). A deliberate decision to hide or withhold knowledge could occur, with individuals
being evasive, resorting to pretense, and eventually misleading others (Persky & Robinson,
2017).
In this vein, Wang and Wang (2012) raised questions on how tacit and explicit
knowledge sharing practices directly influence interorganizational idea generation and
performances. Relatedly, Duan et al. (2021) advanced the notion of an inherent contradiction
between competition and cooperation and further assert that this clash of competing priorities is
especially prevalent between organizations, each of whom independently seeks a competitive
advantage. Consistent with that claim, other researchers argue that organizations have an equally
imperative need for knowledge sharing and protection (Guo et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2013;
Loebbecke et al., 2016). However, since social exchanges and experiences are conduits for tacit
knowledge, organizations can easily avoid potentially risky interactions.

22
Tacit and explicit knowledge affects individual creativity, research and development, and
sustainable product innovation. Muñoz-Pascual and Galende (2020) pointed out that innovation
is constructed with knowledge, in that a process that generates a new project or product contains
different phases of understanding. However, according to Park et al. (2022), compared to tacit
knowledge, explicit knowledge has a stronger impact on innovativeness. While discussions in
existing literature reflect contradictory findings on whether tacit or explicit has a more
significant impact on knowledge sharing and innovation, it is essential to consider the context in
any such analysis (Park et al., 2022). For example, Pérez-Luño et al. (2019) discussed the
moderating role of tacit knowledge in innovation, just as Berraies et al. (2014) suggested that
socialization and externalization of tacit knowledge positively influence innovation.
In conclusion, both explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge are essential to developing
expertise and improving organizational performance. The experiences of individuals within each
organization and the processes that facilitate successful interactions reinforce efficient
knowledge sharing (Allameh, 2014). Despite the understandings from the knowledge constructs,
antecedents of efficient knowledge sharing provide a richer understanding of both inhibiting and
facilitating factors that affect cross-cultural knowledge sharing. The following sections discuss
the primary antecedents and their influences on knowledge sharing.
MNCs, Globalization, and Opportunity Beyond Borders
Despite the opportunities presented by globalization, precisely the economic kind,
individual and environmental differences cause inefficient knowledge sharing and limit the
economic potential and subsequent impact of both MNCs and SMEs. According to Harzing et al.
(2016), economic globalization leads to greater interdependence between nations’ economies.
Economic interdependence results from growth in cross-border trade of commodities and

23
services, capital, and technology. Thus, companies seek cross-border opportunities to expand the
demand for their products and services (Harzing et al., 2016; Ouakouak & Ouedraogo, 2019;
Usman et al., 2019). However, complex history, ethnocentrism, and cultural competence impact
business relationships and cross-border transactions (Ballor & Yildirim, 2020). Thus, although
such integrations leverage the free flow of human and investment capital across national borders
(Ko & Yang, 2011), their success depends on understanding the factors that constrain or promote
one critical component: the exchange of technical knowledge.
MNCs and Strategic Alliances
As a result of trade liberalization, MNCs often seek to exploit business opportunities in
emerging economies through alliances with local enterprises. Researchers attest to MNCs'
growth, cutting-edge research projects, and impact on domestic economies, mostly through
overseas subsidiaries and joint venture partners (Andrenelli et al., 2018; Foley et al., 2021).
MNCs are significant economic contributors to capital investment and international trade, as well
as to innovation and research (Foley et al., 2021). In turn, the researchers argue that MNCs earn
more of the company's profitability from foreign operations (Foley et al., 2021; Harzing et al.,
2016). Globalization provides an impetus for cross-border strategic business alliances and
foreign direct investment. However, it is imperative to understand their role in, influence on, and
expectations of MNCs in host nations.
An important caveat is necessary here. Several researchers have articulated that despite
MNCs' size and influence, it is irresponsible only to adopt a hostile stance toward their
contribution to national economies and the broader global economy (Foley et al., 2021). The
criticisms against MNCs are plenty: they monopolize markets, exploit domestic labor, avoid
paying their fair share of taxes, evade government regulations, manage innovation

24
inappropriately, undermine sovereign rights, and violate human rights (Calatayud et al., 2008;
Foley et al., 2021). As a result, multinational corporations face distrust and criticism in local
settings (Abugre & Debrah, 2019). Subsequently, a view exists of MNCs as a necessary evil,
organizations that, on the one hand, create domestic jobs, contribute to domestic GDP, and
introduce modern technology. On the other hand, they are perpetrators of conflict, employment
inequity, and business exploitation. As organizations and host nations seek mutually beneficial
business arrangements, the opportunity exists for collaboration, but such entities must remain
cognizant of their complex role in international trade (Ballor & Yildirim, 2020; Foley et al.,
2021).
The exchange of ideas, products, and services has fundamentally changed commerce
from an intra-national to a global enterprise. Researchers have observed that forming the World
Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 as an intergovernmental organization to regulate
international trade was the catalyst for fostering commercial activity across sovereign nations
(Dutta & Dutta, 2013; Pal & Dutta, 2008). Cross-border political and economic agreements
emerged, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), European Union
(EU), Asia Pacific Economic Corporation, Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and African Union (AU). The opportunity to
leverage broader expertise from these agreements fueled investments with partners possessing
both the capability and potential to exploit opportunities in host nations (Black & Morrison,
2014). However, along with the exchange of goods and services comes the free flow of
individuals with different sociocultural constructs and experiences. Thus, Yang (2011) argued
that several critical drivers in globalization include dialogue and sharing expertise, which, if
successful, can lead to growth opportunities for business enterprises. The opportunity to leverage

25
the diverse types of expertise depends on the efficient exchange of practical technical knowledge
required for successful collaboration between MNCs and Indigenous partners.
MNCs have investment capital and technological resources, but knowledge sharing does
not automatically occur. Nguyen et al. (2021) observed that an organization’s explicit intent to
share knowledge is critical to its success. Thus, when setting up companies in host countries, the
MNCs’ actions can create inequalities and reinforce the status quo if there is no explicit objective
to develop expertise through knowledge sharing. MNCs are influential actors whose investment
in a host nation drives economic activity in what Ferner et al. (2011) described as a force of
globalization. Researchers, however, point to how the primary focus is to exploit region-bound
advantages (Arregle et al., 2013). Stemming from a geopolitical shift toward liberalization,
MNCs from Western nations seek joint venture partners in developing countries where labor and
resources are cheap (Kedia et al., 2016). Africa is an emerging market that has attracted attention
for investments and business partnerships, and success in one country serves as an entry point for
a broader regional expansion (Arregle et al., 2013). For MNCs, managing expectations and
conducting business intentionally and transparently is critical, providing real opportunities for
knowledge sharing.
Dominant Western models of knowledge acquisition compel Indigenous SMEs in host
nations to adjust MNCs’ foreign cultural attitudes to develop a business partnership. FisherBorne et al. (2015) argued that existing power imbalances force Indigenous counterparts to meet
social and cultural expectations, including foreign language and etiquette, thereby inadvertently
reinforcing a status quo. Calza et al. (2013) reiterated that Indigenous SMEs accept the status
quo because they perceive MNCs as knowledge givers. MNCs can reinforce disparities and
inequality by demanding that the Indigenous SMEs acquiesce to their foreign expectations.

26
However, according to Rivera et al. (2021), a relational approach that encourages psychological
safety through mutual respect is critical to knowledge sharing in an interorganizational context.
As a corollary of a perceived superiority of experience, the posture of MNCs as carriers
of knowledge inhibits an openness to learning from Indigenous SMEs. With contextual
knowledge of host nations, Indigenous SMEs provide competitive intelligence and unique
customer perspectives required for competitive advantages (Shah et al., 2021). Similarly,
Harzing et al. (2016) further discussed acknowledging the bidirectional nature of knowledge
flows. However, when MNCs see their Indigenous counterparts as observers of the process
rather than active participants with information worth exchanging, the partnership misses the
opportunity to leverage its collective knowledge. For MNCs, the value gained from such
exchanges transfers to parent organizations or be catalysts to future partnership opportunities
(Al-Busaidi & Olfman, 2017; Harzing et al., 2016; Ramdoo, 2016). MNCs benefit from the
partnership when they consider Indigenous SMEs as equal, active partners rather than passive
information recipients.
There is irrefutable evidence that MNCs contribute to domestic economies through their
joint venture partnerships in host countries, but as profit-seeking entities, complex expectations
remain, nonetheless. The inability to leverage diverse expertise hinders collaboration. The notion
that MNCs reinforce the socioeconomic and political status quo by positioning themselves as
knowledge givers creates distrust in the partnership with local partners (Harzing et al., 2016). A
complex history constrains practical knowledge sharing for most MNCs established in countries
with a history of colonialism and exploitation.

27
Untangling History and the Influence of Trust
Regardless of the countries where MNCs and SMEs originate, their history influences the
culture and philosophy of sovereign nations and perceptions of trust. Curado and Vieira (2019)
suggested that trust is reciprocal faith in each other’s intention and behavior and is thus a
willingness to be vulnerable due to the assumption and expectation of positive intent. With trust
as a moderating factor, a positive or negative history has implications for contemporary society,
impacting the success of business relationships and transactions. The following sections discuss
the dynamics of a complex history, ethnocentrism, and cultural competence.
Organizations from different sovereign nations have unique and complex historical
backgrounds that influence cross-border relationships and define expectations. Gentle-Gennity et
al. (2021) argued that society consciously and unconsciously creates strata to justify superiority
over another. The resulting ideological constructs influence relationships and ascribe power, and
where this dynamic had once fostered oppression, mistrust existed. For example, myths about
dark people have perpetuated negative stereotypes and oppressive actions of inhumanity,
injustice, and indignity (Love, 2019). A worldview that Anglo-Saxons perceive themselves as
God’s ideal creation with a God-ordained superiority, known as Manifest Destiny, created and
justified oppressive colonial systems (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013). The idea that one
race has the right to dominate all humanity reinforced the oppressive systems (Shadle, 2015).
With such history, business partnerships evoke sentiments that Westerners only work with Black
people as charity for moral satisfaction or self-serving exploitation schemes. Shadle (2015)
stated that the crude characterization of Black people and Africans reinforces the unfounded
stereotype that Blacks and Whites cannot be equal. Thus, in a stratified global society that
characterizes the Black and Africans as incompetent and dense, history justifies the inequality,

28
and business relationships assume those characterizations (Gentle-Gennity et al., 2021).
According to Curado and Vieira (2019), an environment where individuals elect to collaborate
only to satisfy contractual obligations severely impacts knowledge exchange.
An antecedent of complex ideological relationships is colonialism. Imperialist structures
created a master-servant dynamic, the remnants of which exist in contemporary African society
and nurture distrust (Kwarteng, 2014; Shadle, 2015). Every society or culture’s interest is as
legitimate as another’s (De Long & Fahey, 2000; Wright et al., 2017). Thus, for MNCs, a
genuine recognition of historical injustices will alleviate the tension in what Andreotti (2016)
described as imperialist amnesia. Institutional injustices in the former colonies are not merely
historical events for Indigenous populations. Instead, they see a master-servant dynamic
reinventing in other contexts to promote injustices and dehumanization (Dutta & Elers, 2020).
According to Curado and Vieira (2019), a lack of mutual trust discourages a willingness to create
and exchange knowledge.
Stemming from Curado and Vieira's argument, since knowledge sharing develops from
social interactions and interpersonal trust engenders cooperation, individuals within
organizations can undermine the organization's commitment to knowledge sharing. For
sovereign African nations seeking to move beyond colonialism, the roots of systemic injustices
continue to impact contemporary society. In an exploratory work of the British Empire's legacy
worldwide, including Ghana, Kwarteng (2014) provided evidence for colonial enterprises'
different, often exploitative, and brutal idiosyncrasies. The impact of colonialism is a present-day
reality, not a record of a distant forgettable past. As a result, seemingly unrelated and innocuous
occurrences in host nations trigger memories of a painful history of racism and imperialism
(Shadle, 2015). Organizations seeking to successfully exchange knowledge between individuals

29
from backgrounds with deep historical markers must undergo a fundamental paradigm shift to
treat every culture and society equally, a departure from colonial master-servant constructs.
Dominant colonial ideology elevates Western society, knowledge, and experience as the
ideal, thus perpetuating a Western superiority complex. For Westerners with this construct as
part of their cultural fabric, epistemology informed by centuries of systemic “shapes truths
toward their preferred results” (Painter, 2010, p. 281). Conceptualizing the Negro as the “very
extreme of human wretchedness” and people who “lack the vision, as well as the spunk to add
value to the world” (Painter, 2010, pp. 134-135), reinforced this superiority complex. From this
perspective, Andreotti (2016) described a portrayal of the Black person as backward, unskilled,
and irrational, contrary to the stereotype of the Westerner as civilized, competent, and rational.
This historical barrier constrains relationships between individuals. Curado and Vieira (2019)
contend that because the development of shared beliefs and opinions is instrumental to
promoting effective relationships, successful interaction will hinge on a two-way exchange that
recognizes all parties as equal stakeholders and where expected outcomes are mutually beneficial
(Dutta & Dutta, 2013; Dutta & Elers, 2020). For foreign MNCs, the goal of cross-border
transactions will not be to impart an ideal superior experience to an Indigenous partner.
The successful negotiation of power dynamics determines the success of MNCs’
interactions with Indigenous SMEs. According to Ferner et al. (2011), MNCs operate within an
“institutional duality” where they influence their societies and those of the host countries beyond
their borders (p.164). As such, the expectations in the local environment do not automatically
shape MNCs’ positions of power and interests in host nations. With both the financial resources,
the Indigenous actor is inherently in a subservient position and with little ability to influence the
agenda (Ferner et al., 2011). The domination enables MNCs to influence the local environment;

30
thus, the Indigenous SMEs seek ways to gain a competitive advantage to ensure their survival.
Ferner et al. reiterate the argument, often describing MNCs in such contexts as “rule makers”
and “rule takers” (p.169). As rule makers, MNCs manipulate institutional settings and force
Indigenous actors to acquiesce to their preferences. Against this backdrop, Petrakis and Kostis
(2015) concluded that knowledge exchange between MNCs and SMEs is primarily tacit. Thus,
the knowledge is not readily codified and formalized into procedures and manuals in this
context. Petrakis and Kostis further suggested that tacit knowledge requires more significant
social interaction to facilitate knowledge sharing. As such, where the MNCs view their power
and influence as strategic tools and the Indigenous SMEs seek opportunities to ensure their
survival, the misaligned goals impede knowledge sharing.
Both foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs can experience injustice. This reality
challenges the one-sided conceptualization of injustice, which ignores the realities of foreign
partner organizations with employees from diverse backgrounds and whose rights are equally
worthy of protection. Bailey and Winchester (2016) noted that social injustice occurs along
multiple dimensions of class, race, gender, and ethnicity. That point of view draws from an
approach to social justice that asserts that injustice transcends geographical boundaries and that
constitutional arrangements should protect every individual within their borders (Bailey &
Winchester, 2016). It is reasonable to assume that a safe working environment fosters knowledge
exchange. Sharp et al. (2019) also support this perspective by recognizing how overt behaviors,
subtle undermining, and incivility contribute to the marginalization of foreign MNCs or
Indigenous SMEs. Building upon that reasoning, Rivera et al. (2021) contend that effective
human interactions facilitate knowledge sharing. The process fails when one party feels unable to
take risks, share their ideas freely, or accept feedback without reservations.

31
An important dimension of trust appears in cases where MNCs perceive their knowledge
as a trade secret or vital to their technology. As a result, they need to be more motivated to
engage with Indigenous SMEs openly for fear of losing their competitive edge. According to
Zhoa et al. (2020), this is when the knowledge sharing process breaks down. Guo et al. (2020)
defined this as the ambidexterity dimension, i.e., organizations have an equally imperative need
to share and protect knowledge. In their research, Jiang et al. (2013) defined knowledge
protection as the behaviors organizations employ to protect their information from appropriation
or imitation. From an MNC’s perspective, an Indigenous partner organization could imitate
technological products or inadvertently disclose core components to a competitor. Thus,
researchers argue the same stance, recognizing the risk of disclosing proprietary information to
strategic partners (Jiang et al., 2013; Loebbecke et al., 2016). Therefore, from the MNCs’
perspective, an unwillingness to disclose technological secrets is a result of caution, rather than a
lack of trust.
For MNCs, openly discussing the history of oppression alleviates distrust and suspicion
of ethnocentrism and creates a framework to identify and address inequalities. Guess (2006)
suggested that racism and discrimination operate at a macro level and are “depersonalized
through institutionalization” (p. 651). A gradual shift from overt discriminatory behavior masks
subtle patterns that may persist and influence cultural norms. Nevertheless, efficient knowledge
sharing is possible through mutually beneficial collaboration and social interaction rather than a
forced imposition of expectations and monitoring mechanisms. (Akhavan et al., 2015).
Understanding the differences in individual and collective experiences and perceptions of
oppression and privilege fosters meaningful collaboration among teams from different
sociocultural backgrounds.

32
From Ethnocentrism to Cultural Competence
Understanding and respecting Indigenous cultural contexts is critical to success in any
cross-border partnership. Bizumic (2015) defined ethnocentrism as an ethnic or cultural
group's excessive interest in its welfare at the expense of others and involves a belief in the
superiority of a group, including its values and practices. Developing a critical consciousness for
meaningful interpersonal relationships demands mutually beneficial and non-paternalistic
partnerships unaffected by cultural stereotypes and biases (Abe, 2020).
Paradigm Shifts and Renegotiating Cross-Cultural Interactions
Organizations with a history of colonialism and ethnocentrism seeking competitive
advantages in emerging markets and developing economies must be especially cautious of their
orientation to change prevailing notions. Perceptions of cultural superiority risk alienating
business partners and customers. Miscommunication rooted in ethnocentrism leads to
antagonistic behavior and resistance that disrupts business goals (Dutta & Elers, 2020).
Furthermore, misaligned interests and divergent interpretations of the shared goal force MNCs
and SMEs to negotiate toward their interests, which worsens conflict (Blazejewski, 2009).
Successful collaborations demand that individuals understand themselves and their
positionality and context. Culture is a central framework through which individuals and
communities interpret their world; thus, cultural identity influences and constrains interactions
(De Long & Fahey, 2000; Kirmayer, 2012). Culture is how people understand their world and
construct their epistemology (Love, 2019). For MNCs operating in host nations, the diversity in
culture requires individuals to be both self-aware and self-critical (Wright et al., 2017) and to
recognize how differences in belief systems, attitudes, and values affect interactions (Abe, 2020;
Fisher-Borne et al., 2015). Self-awareness demands that individuals evaluate how their cultural

33
identities shape their worldviews. According to Dutta and Dutta (2013), knowledge about culture
and cross-cultural communication have become critical tools for transnational commerce. If
deployed appropriately, cultural knowledge challenges predispositions, moving individuals from
ethnocentric to ethnic–relative competence (Vlad & Stan, 2018). Likewise, Calza et al. (2013)
reasoned that cultural knowledge as an intangible resource is critical to success in multicultural
contexts. Successful operations in local settings hinge on shifting narratives from perceptions of
the superiority of foreign MNCs to mutually beneficial collaboration with Indigenous partners.
Beyond Cultural Awareness
In addition to the knowledge and mindfulness of a culture, effective interactions require
humility and intelligence to successfully facilitate successful knowledge exchange. Cultural
competence is a consistent set of behaviors and attitudes that enable individuals to be aware of
and appreciate cultural diversity to function effectively in cross-cultural contexts (Azzopardi &
McNeill, 2016). According to Abe (2020) and Fisher-Borne et al. (2015), understanding another
culture requires a critical consciousness and the humility to recognize its complexity and to
accept different philosophical worldviews. Cultural competence is understanding another culture
while realizing that an individual’s presumed knowledge is incomplete or may be incorrect
(Calza et al., 2013; Fisher-Borne et al., 2015; Kirmayer, 2012). Furthermore, cultural
competence is the ability to use cultural knowledge in the appropriate context. Danso (2016)
concurs, outlining its significance in cross-cultural discourse as a framework to conduct
culturally sensitive training for organizations, and organizations that operate in cross-cultural
settings.
Although cultural competence has predominantly provided perspective on issues of
diversity and inequality (Azzopardi & McNeill, 2016; Kirmayer, 2012), its use in cross-cultural

34
settings is appropriate given the multicultural configuration of the actors. In the same vein, few
studies have described cultural humility as a conscientious commitment to cultural selfevaluation (Fisher-Borne et al., 2015; Kirmayer, 2012) and an openness to other cultural
backgrounds (Mosher et al., 2017). Both views of cultural humility and cultural competence
challenge normative understandings of culture and address historical and socioeconomic forces
that foster marginalization and oppressive practices (Danso, 2016). Similarly, researchers
contend that meaningful cross-cultural interaction stems from openness, self-reflection, and
respect (Rosen et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2017). As Abe (2020) concludes, cultural knowledge
and an actual change in an individual’s behavior is essential to foster knowledge sharing.
A dimension worthy of discussion is technological competence. In contexts of technical
knowledge sharing, competency is essential. According to Al-Busaidi and Olfman (2017), both
technical infrastructure and technological aptitude should be conducive to knowledge sharing, as
they both become enabling factors in the process. Related to this reasoning is social cognitive
theory’s notion of self-efficacy which is an individual’s perceived behavioral control and a
judgment of their capability in each context (Bandura, 1986). Thus, perception of and belief in
one’s ability to perform a technological task are critical to both the giver’s motivation to share
knowledge and the recipient’s capacity to understand it (Rivera et al., 2021). Nevertheless, when
MNCs have the essential technical experience, respecting individuals in partner organizations for
their contextual knowledge enhances interorganizational knowledge sharing.
Relationships characterized by ethnocentric predispositions inhibit successful knowledge
exchange. Inclusion leverages collective strength and impacts productivity. Abe (2020) pointed
out that increasing cultural knowledge without influencing individual behavior is of limited
value. In order to maintain market competitiveness for both MNCs and SMEs, organizations

35
must leverage individual and environmental differences as an opportunity for growth. The
subsequent section discusses the unique characteristics of Ghana’s energy sector, Local Content
Policy, and SMEs as interfaces with foreign MNCs.
The Role of SMEs in Ghana’s Energy Sector
Despite the challenges that inhibit their growth, SMEs in Ghana play strategic roles in
developing the country's upstream petroleum sector. SMEs are independent organizations
registered as micro-businesses, small or medium businesses with relatively few employees,
market share, assets, and revenues within country-specific thresholds (Augustine & Asiedu,
2017; Baah-Mintah et al., 2018). The constraints of investment capital and requisite technology
necessitate strategic alliances with foreign enterprises. Cross-border collaboration between
Indigenous SMEs and foreign MNCs enables organizations to optimize business processes and
increase the efficiency of operations.
Oil and Gas: An Emerging Sector
Ghana's energy sector requires investment and expertise to maintain sustainable growth.
According to the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Tullow Oil and Kosmos
Energy discovered oil in commercial quantities in 2007, and commercial production of oil started
in 2010 (GNPC, 2014). That discovery occurred after Ghana's government sold offshore oil
exploration and production licenses to international companies. Those companies had the
requisite capital, technology, and expertise to undertake explorative work (Kastning, 2011).
Beginning with the oil exploration and extraction in Jubilee Field, the country's petroleum
exploration and concurrent oilfield services attracted MNCs to do business in Ghana.
Researchers have discussed both the role that natural resource exploitation plays in countries'
economic development and the opportunity to attract foreign direct investments (Tordo et al.,

36
2011). According to government records, foreign petroleum companies operating in offshore and
onshore sedimentary basins have been allocated quotas, known as oil blocks, to explore, develop,
and produce oil and gas (GNPC, 2014; Petroleum Commission, 2015).
State-owned GNPC regulates the country’s petroleum sector, with the constitutional
mandate to explore, develop and produce petroleum in all open blocks and to require all
organizations interested in exploiting related opportunities to register with the regulatory entity
(Petroleum Commission, 2015). Further, the GNPC established the Petroleum Commission with
the responsibility to promote, regulate and manage upstream petroleum operations and
coordinate related policies. Foreign companies dominate the upstream sector, including Eni
S.p.A. Tullow, Anadarko, Aker Energy, Kosmos, and Exxon Mobil (Petroleum Commission,
2015). Comparatively, technical expertise and capital investments constrain participation by
Indigenous Ghanaians.
Compared to industrialized countries making significant technological investments and
advancements, emerging economies like Ghana need more resources for scientific research,
specifically in the energy sector. Asumadu-Sarkodie and Owusu (2016) pointed out that the
limited and sporadic nature of research causes the government to lean on private investors for
exploration and related activities. MNCs typically have the financial ability to invest huge capital
in exploration projects and propel innovation (Foley et al., 2021; Pegram et al., 2018). The
government enacted Local Content and Local Participation in Petroleum Activities Regulations,
2013 (L.I. 2204), to facilitate job creation and Indigenous participation (Petroleum Commission,
2015). In Ghana, the L.I. 2204 intended to develop local capacity through expertise development
and technology transfers (Enterprise Development Center Ghana, 2013). This policy outlined

37
Ghana’s Indigenous participation while monitoring foreign participation in this sector’s
activities.
Local Content Policy and Indigenous Participation
Local content regulations provide international trade opportunities for Indigenous
enterprises and local economies. Natural resources, including oil and gas, are critical to the
economy of developing countries like Ghana. In the early 1970s, countries operating in the North
Sea introduced local energy sector content policies to manage the direct involvement of
European countries (Tordo et al., 2013). According to Ramdoo (2016), developing countries seek
tangible benefits from their extractive industries. Exploiting natural resources is an avenue to
attract foreign investment and create jobs for the Indigenous Ghanaian workforce. According to
the Petroleum Commission, the sole purpose of enacting L.I. 2204 was job creation and
developing local expertise in the petroleum sector (Petroleum Commission, 2015). The core of
local content legislation is to give countries the platform to build local capacity through active
participation by the Indigenous population. Another dimension includes the expectation of
foreign partners to directly invest in long-term economic development through knowledge
sharing, knowledge transfer, and investment in technology.
In Ghana’s LI 2204, local content measures the percentage or quantum of personnel,
locally produced materials, financing, and goods and services rendered in the energy sector value
chain in monetary terms (Petroleum Commission, 2015). Local content legislation provides a
platform for Indigenous capacity building. However, researchers posit the peculiar challenges in
the nascent energy sector present a negative cost-benefit analysis and potentially discourage
potential investors (Vaaland et al., 2011). For example, the lack of in-country financial resources
and critical infrastructure undermines the opportunity to involve significant numbers of

38
Indigenous enterprises in the ownership and participation framework as intended by Ghana’s
local content requirements (Tordo et al., 2013).
Similarly, the World Bank, as well as other researchers, recognize local content policies
as a mechanism to develop local skills, promote the acquisition of local goods and services,
encourage the participation of domestic firms, and promote the funding of resource activities in
the country (Tordo et al., 2013). Notably, implementing local content policies requires foreign
companies to enter joint venture partnerships to obtain operating licenses in host nations
(Ramdoo, 2016). These definitions are consistent with the practical expectations of Indigenous
Ghanaians, thus acknowledging the opportunity to invest directly in the sector and seek foreign
partners with the requisite expertise or capital. However, the capital’s intensive nature and the
required specialized skill constrain the ability of Indigenous Ghanaian companies, predominantly
SMEs, to participate in the upstream petroleum sector. This reality necessitates collaborative
partnerships through joint venture agreements with foreign MNCs to exploit opportunities in
Ghana (Foley et al., 2021; Ramdoo, 2016).
Sackey et al. (2021) provide evidence for sub–Saharan African countries’ reliance on
international trade to boost their domestic economy, and the energy sector is no exception.
Energy activities are knowledge-intensive, thus requiring experience and an understanding of
declarative, procedural, and conceptual knowledge to perform essential tasks. According to Del
Giudice et al. (2017), in a contemporary society with a knowledge economy, organizations must
incorporate knowledge acquisition and its transfer into every facet of their operations to survive
in a knowledge-intensive competitive market. A vital goal of the L.I. 2204 is knowledge sharing
to build essential Indigenous knowledge in the sector (Petroleum Commission, 2015). MNCs
cannot achieve the competitive advantages they seek in cross-border operations without practical

39
knowledge exchange. Furthermore, SMEs will be too handicapped to operate natural resource
projects requiring massive financial and specialized technical expertise. The problem hinders
collaboration and innovation and stifles the development of employees in local environments
(Abugre & Debrah, 2019).
As evidence of the severity of the problem, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in
2020 forced Ghana’s entire oil and gas sector to partially shut down, largely due to the absence
of requisite local expertise to replace expatriate knowledge (Ghana Ministry of Finance, 2021).
The World Health Organization (2020) described coronaviruses as a virus that emerged in China
in December 2019. Researchers noted the significant disruption due to infection and illness, local
and international restrictions, and volatile supply and demand of products and services (Dickson
& Yao, 2020; Sackey et al., 2021; Zalengera, 2021). For example, the Ghana government
enacted legislation restricting movement and commerce, including border closures and
mandatory quarantines (Sackey et al., 2021).
The measures deployed by health authorities to mitigate the spread of COVID-19,
including quarantines, travel restrictions, and shutdowns of non-essential activities resulted in
severe economic disruptions (Wheeler et al., 2020; Zalengera, 2021). Losses of over $700
million in the sector’s revenue, unemployment, and service company shutdowns, as well as
threats of social unrest, beckoned an unmistakable urgency to address this persistent and
debilitating problem (African Union, 2020; Ghana Ministry of Finance, 2021; Sackey et al.,
2021; Wheeler et al., 2020). A key observation was how countries with local expertise and
essential technology tend to withstand crippling economic crises (Sackey et al., 2021; Wheeler et
al., 2020). Thus, as foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs remain key collaborators for

40
international trade, knowledge sharing remains critical in facilitating participation and supporting
aligned business interests.
Catalysts for Change: Managers, Stakeholders, and Conduits
SMEs are integral to economic development in four ways: as job creators and innovators,
knowledge brokers, and change agents. While there is no universally agreed-upon definition of
SMEs, researchers concur that sovereign nations have the right to determine the appropriate
definitions and registration parameters (Amoah & Amoah, 2018; Augustine & Asiedu, 2017;
Peprah et al., 2016). As a result of globalization, multinational corporations embrace the
opportunity to leverage their capabilities by expanding into emerging markets where the benefits
of internationalization outweigh the costs and risks (Nguyen et al., 2019). For foreign MNCs,
partnerships with Indigenous SMEs are attractive entry strategies because of their peculiar
contextual insight into local markets (Harzing et al., 2016; Yang, 2018).
SMEs’ Role as Economic Influencers
SMEs provide the skills and resources that contribute to the development of local
economies. In their capacity to serve as engines for innovation and economic growth, local
economies consider SMEs’ value as improving the welfare and standard of living (Ntiamoah et
al., 2016). From their interface with foreign MNCs, SMEs’ growth fuels innovation and
entrepreneurship in developing countries; however, their long-term viability risks efficient
knowledge exchange. According to researchers, SMEs in Ghana contribute to approximately
70% of the country's GDP (Amoah & Amoah, 2018; Peprah et al., 2016) and provide an
estimated 60% of employment to the domestic workforce (Ntiamoah et al., 2016).
According to United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), 70% of businesses in
Ghana are in the informal sector (SMEs), with an estimated 160,000 enterprises in the country

41
(UNCDF, 2021). Specifically, in the energy sector, the Petroleum Commission’s records indicate
800 SMEs intending to engage directly in oil and gas activities (Petroleum Commission, 2020).
Although it is reasonable to expect national policies to encourage their formation and
sustainability, most SMEs in Ghana fail in the first few years after their registration (Yeboah,
2015). The inability to sustain SME enterprises affects their contribution to economic growth and
viability as joint venture partners for foreign MNCs (Ntiamoah et al., 2016). Partnerships with
foreign MNCs allow SMEs to acquire critical investment capital and expertise to exploit
economic opportunities. As a result, the short lifespan of SMEs affects investing MNCs’ ability
to exchange expertise in a timely enough way to gain competitive advantages.
SMEs in Ghana play an integral role in job creation and innovation; however, they often
need more support to provide the expertise needed in the energy sector. Industry experts claim
that despite its aggressive Local Content Policy, Ghana's government still needs to meet its job
creation target. Thus, Asante et al. (2018) argued that the government created significantly fewer
jobs compared to the number of job opportunities it initially estimated. It is reasonable to assert
that the government of Ghana cannot employ every citizen, even with a robust energy sector.
Ghana's government relies on private enterprises and SMEs to address its critical employment
gaps to create business opportunities (Amoah & Amoah, 2018; Peprah et al., 2016). Researchers
agree that SMEs as the backbone of Ghana's economy, specifically noting their essential job
creation contributions to the GDP (Augustine & Asiedu, 2017; Ntiamoah et al., 2016; Peprah et
al., 2016). However, the lack of expertise, technology, and outmoded equipment hampers their
performance (Asante et al., 2018; Yeboah, 2015). Adopting collaborative and innovative
business practices in domestic and international markets enables SMEs and MNCs to exploit
opportunities collectively.

42
SMEs’ Role as Knowledge Sharing Gatekeepers
SMEs manage the access and dissemination of information in the knowledge sharing
process. Knowledge sharing is a primary way to access technological and operational expertise
for Ghana, a nation whose nascent oil and gas operations make it an energy resource-rich country
(ERRC). According to Ramdoo (2016), resource-rich emerging economies continue to enact
policies to maximize their natural resource exploitation. Consistent with this observation, Heim
et al. (2019) noted that collaboration between foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs can facilitate
the transfer of technology and expertise. In Ghana, inter-firm knowledge sharing occurs through
joint venture (JV) agreements and Public Private Partnerships (PPP); however, with the requisite
competency levels, researchers suggest that MNCs can afford to absorb the added expense of
training Indigenous counterparts (Amoah & Amoah, 2018).
According to Al-Busaidi and Olfman (2017), interorganizational knowledge sharing
plays a strategic role in economic development by helping to build capacity and develop human
resources. As interfacing organizations with foreign MNCs, executive leadership in SMEs
mediate the knowledge sharing process. Executive leaders, including the chief executive officers,
general managers, managing directors, in-country managers, heads of departments, and project
managers facilitate training programs and disseminate knowledge and expertise to other
employees within the Indigenous organizations. The vital role of SMEs as points of contact
ensures that MNCs understand the local context and the expectations. In host nations, the
legislative requirements and Indigenous interpretations of MNC expectations require SMEs to
serve as conduits. Consequently, effective executive leadership in SMEs serves both regulative
and integrative functions in knowledge transfer and is essential to address the stated needs of the
organization, government, and employees (Al-Busaidi & Olfman, 2017; Ndiaye et al., 2018).

43
Researchers agree that executive leadership in SMEs is vital to the local organization's viability
and assert executives' vital gatekeeping function in the knowledge sharing process (Harzing et
al., 2016; Yang, 2018).
As Indigenous entities directly collaborate with MNCs to explore the feasibility of new
technology and processes, the SMEs serve as catalysts for change. The close working
relationships with foreign organizations with the know-how and technology required to meet
global standards challenge inefficient systems and status quo operations in Ghana. The exposure
to new practices and industry standards forces the Indigenous SMEs to lead the change effort
with Ghana’s local sector. According to Ndiaye et al. (2018), SMEs have the propensity to
pursue innovation and respond quickly to market dynamics. This perspective is consistent with
other researchers’ conclusions that SMEs tend to be more flexible and adapt quickly to changing
market conditions (Amoah & Amoah, 2018; Ocloo et al., 2014). As an agent of change,
executive leadership in the SMEs is responsible for being the conduit of vision, articulating
organizational strategy and policy implementation, and ensuring local knowledge acquisition.
Ultimately, in examining phenomena like SME and MNC interactions and cultural
influences, Vlad and Stan (2018) observed how most studies typically focus on a single
dimension. From that argument, such research addresses only a fraction of the complex cultural
and environmental influence. Instead, a theoretical framework that recognizes the multifaceted
interrelationships between an individual and the surrounding environment is most appropriate for
understanding the factors that facilitate or inhibit individual behavior, including knowledge
sharing. The discussion in the following section pertains to such a multilayered theoretical
framework.

44
Theoretical Framework: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model conceptualizes learning as a multilayered
and interconnected cluster of events that construct an individual’s environment (Crawford, 2020;
Lau & Ng, 2014). The theory includes a microsystem, an individual’s direct experience which
consists of activities, norms, and roles in a given setting; and a mesosystem that identifies
connections across the settings of an individual’s experiences and the structures that support and
influences development (Watson, 2017). An exosystem captures situations that, even without
direct participation, still influence an individual. The microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem
form a broader macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The changes that occur in an environment
over a period of time form the chronosystem. The theory helps to understand how individuals do
not function independently of complex, interrelated environmental systems (Crawford, 2020).
Further, it provides a “transcultural framework” (Lau & Ng, 2014, p. 425) for understanding
knowledge sharing between organizations.
According to Bronfenbrenner, a range of external factors with varying degrees of
proximity influence human development and subsequent socialization processes (Rosa & Tudge,
2013). The circles enveloping an individual represent this conceptualization of embedded
structures, each as a layer of environmental influence (Crawford, 2020; Lau & Ng, 2014). The
environmental and personal contexts affect an individual’s development within the complex
communities where they exist (Watson, 2017) and their interactions. Thus, Bronfenbrenner
concluded that an individual adapts to environmental conditions, forming their social
construction of reality and worldview (Eriksson et al., 2018). The influence of reciprocal
relationships of microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, and macrosystems is evident in cross-

45
cultural contexts as individuals with different environmental influences conceptualize their world
and behaviors within it differently.
Figure 1
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
As Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory initially focused on childhood
development and learning (Lau & Ng, 2014; Watson, 2017), it is reasonable to question its value
in understanding knowledge sharing in cross-cultural contexts. Two main arguments support
using bioecological systems theory to understand the factors affecting knowledge sharing
between foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs. First, individuals in MNCs and SMEs have

46
different cultural dispositions shaped by unique microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, and
macrosystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Lau & Ng, 2014). Secondly, the unique interconnected
systems either facilitate or hinder interactions in cross-cultural settings with divergent
expectations and competing priorities (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Watson, 2017). Although all levels
interface with and influence each other, there is the underlying assumption that shared
interactions are strongest between the most proximal nested levels (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Thus,
the role of individual characteristics and contextual systems has the power to explain the factors
that either facilitate or inhibit knowledge sharing between individuals with unique sociocultural
contexts.
Microsystem
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model articulates the microsystem as an
individual’s immediate environment and the elements that directly impact him through contact.
The relationships are bidirectional, and the influences of the immediate environment can alter an
individual’s belief system, attitudes, temperaments, and worldview (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Through their direct contact, the bidirectional interactions in the microsystem exert the most
significant influence on an individual (Crawford, 2020; Eriksson et al., 2018; Watson, 2017).
The nested layers represent the different influences on SMEs and MNCs in the
knowledge sharing process. The interrelated elements of the individual, organizational, and
environmental factors help to understand the complex dynamics that inhibit or facilitate
knowledge sharing between organizations, especially the cross-cultural type. For example, an
individual will be affected by immediate family, community, personality, beliefs, temperament,
organization, and network groups. Interactions with these patterns of activities and interpersonal
relationships play a role in determining their resulting worldview.

47
Mesosystem
The mesosystem connects microsystems (Crawford, 2020; Tudge et al., 2009). Rather
than perceiving them as separate entities, the theory conceptualizes the interconnected
microsystems that influence individuals (Eriksson et al., 2018). Unlike the microsystem’s direct
interaction with the individual, the mesosystem comprises different linkages between one or
more settings related to the development of an individual.
Unique lived experiences add to a multilayered identity and environmental construct,
while events, activities, and unique environments impact individual actions (Lau & Ng, 2014;
Watson, 2017). These factors affect the quality of individuals’ interactions and knowledge
sharing process (Abugre & Debrah, 2019). Factors interacting to influence an individual can
coincide, thereby producing a conflict (Crawford, 2020). Thus, it is reasonable to concur with
Bronfenbrenner’s assertion that influence is more significant where microsystems are in concert
rather than clashing and play a reciprocal reinforcing role in each microsystem.
Exosystem
The exosystem encompasses the formal and informal social structures that indirectly help
form the individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). This indirect influence is due to a social structure’s
direct influence on the elements in an individual’s microsystem (Eriksson et al., 2018). Thus,
even though the exosystem does not ordinarily involve the individual, the events occur within the
setting and affect the individual construction of their environment. The exosystem illustrates how
the external environment in which an individual is not immediately situated can ultimately alter
the meanings they ascribe to phenomena (Crawford, 2020).
According to the ecological systems theory (Rosa & Tudge, 2013), secondary influence is
because environmental conditions shape the individual actions within those contexts, thus having

48
an indirect influence. In the case of organizations involved in cross-cultural transactions, events
indirectly affecting an individual include global trade arrangements and changes in the global
markets. Further, other seemingly unrelated events influence the individual, including successes
or failures of peer organizations in other countries and information about the work ethic of
individuals in other countries (Watson, 2017). While external to an individual’s immediate
environment, all these events affect their experience, nonetheless.
Macrosystem
The macrosystem in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model describes the different
cultural elements that immerse an individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). A cultural predisposition
constructs beliefs and worldviews (Eriksson et al., 2018). The macrosystem encircles the
microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem, and is fundamentally different in the way it
encapsulates institutional systems of culture including its economic, social, educational, legal,
and political systems (Rosa & Tudge, 2013). Macrosystems recognize the established social
structure and culture within which the individual develops (Crawford, 2020). These include
values, traditions, societal norms, and belief systems. The macrosystem’s influence permeates
other layers and the subsequently produced environment (Lau & Ng, 2014; Watson, 2017).
For macrosystems, the theory conceptualizes uniqueness in ethnicity, geography, and
philosophical worldview as factors in the growth of individual experience (Rosa & Tudge,
2013). As a result of the cultural structure and social expectations, individual worldviews and
behavior will vary (Rosa & Tudge, 2013). Societies that foster structural racism, positive images
of Western countries, negative constructs of Africa, and ethnocentrism will influence MNC
attitudes toward and expectations of local SME partners.

49
Chronosystem
The chronosystem consists of all environmental changes occurring over a period of time
and their effect on an individual’s development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Crawford (2020)
discusses ecological transitions, noting that changes in the time period influence an individual’s
development. Thus, an individual experience may change as culture shifts, or with different
events compelling society to change its stance on a norm (Rosa & Tudge, 2013). For individuals,
major life events also become transition points (Eriksson et al., 2018).
The chronosystem shows how different individual and environmental factors influence
behavior as an individual evolves through acquiring new knowledge and understanding
(Crawford, 2020). The events occurring at different stages in an individual’s environment
influence an individual’s development. As such, the interplay among process, person, context,
and time offers a framework to understand the interconnectedness and contextual variations in an
individual’s development (Crawford, 2020; Eriksson et al., 2018; Rosa & Tudge, 2013).
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory elucidates how individuals in both MNCs and SMEs
create meaning and develop knowledge differently based on their social reality and unique
phenomenology. MNCs and SMEs can employ this theoretical lens to understand the
interconnectedness and contextual variations in an individual’s development and their impact on
knowledge sharing. For foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs, activities in their unique
environments impact individual responses to learning and affect the quality of their interactions
and knowledge transfer process (Martins, 2016).
Conceptual Framework
Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, a conceptual framework
explores the problem of inefficient knowledge sharing in cross-cultural contexts and between

50
organizations. The literature review revealed several themes, and based on this evaluation, this
study situates a framework. The focus is on the impact of individual and environmental factors in
the microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem. Figure 2 illustrates these interactions and
interrelationships. The impact of sociocultural differences, articulated through the nested and
interrelated systems (Crawford, 2020; Eriksson et al., 2018), presents complex constraints and
opportunities for MNCs and SMEs for knowledge sharing.
Direct Influences
Immediate circles of influence can be nurturing or detrimental to individual development
(Crawford, 2020). The microsystem in the nested layers demonstrates the influences of peers and
community on the individuals in the MNCs and SMEs. The repeated interaction and influence
over an extended period of time reinforce individual perspectives and epistemology (Tudge et
al., 2009). An individual’s family, geographic location, organizational structure, coworkers,
informal social supports, community, and cultural settings impact their development (Lau & Ng,
2014). This direct interaction with the social agents helps form the attitudes they bring to the
interactions within organizations. The individual is not a passive recipient of the activities and
events that surround them; as such, they construct their worldviews (Watson, 2017).
MNCs and SMEs exist at the center of microsystems. Each brings unique face-to-face
influences and subsequent meaning to any interaction; as such, their unique worldviews affect
that knowledge sharing process. This perspective demonstrates a simultaneous emphasis on
individual and contextual systems on individual attributes and behaviors (Eriksson et al., 2018).
In cross-cultural contexts, variations in activities, roles, and relationships influence knowledge
sharing behaviors between individuals with uniquely different stimuli in the microsystem (Abe,
2020; Fisher-Borne et al., 2015).

51
Modulating Influences
Interactions and relationships between the different microsystems have a controlling
effect on individuals in MNCs and SMEs. As such, these individual microsystems for the MNCs
and SMEs do not function independently; rather, they are interconnected and shape each other
and the individual. The interdependent relations between the systems further emphasize proximal
processes and reciprocal interactions as significant influencers (Crawford, 2020; Eriksson et al.,
2018). This relationship considers how the various systems interact with the individuals in the
SME and MNC, as well as among each other. Professional networks, interactions with other
MNCs, expatriates with experiences in working with other cultures, and subsidiary organizations
affect individuals in the MNCs. Similarly, interactions with subsidiary organizations influence
both individual attitudes and personalities, and the foreign organization’s propensity to share
openly knowledge with Indigenous counterparts. The interplay between the microsystems and
exosystems helps MNCs to navigate the relationships in host nations (Areed et al., 2020; Nguyen
et al., 2021; Ouakouak & Ouedraogo, 2019; Shah et al., 2021).
Regarding the Indigenous SMEs, professional business networks and interactions with
other SMEs and government agencies that regulate international trade impact their interactions
with MNCs. Executive leadership in SMEs plays an essential role in creating a supportive
environment that facilitates effective exchanges. The interactions between microsystems affect
the individual’s ability to efficiently share knowledge and the organization’s ability to share it
with their counterparts effectively. Relationships based on mutual benefits for competitive
advantage and organizational performance are more likely to foster efficient information
exchange. One successful mediating role of the mesosystem allows both MNCs and SMEs to
develop meaningful business relationships to facilitate knowledge sharing.

52
Indirect Influences
The exosystem describes settings where neither the individuals in the MNCs or SMEs are
active participants, yet occurrences affect their knowledge sharing behavior. Exploring the crosslevel interactions and impact of external events beyond immediate environments provides a
comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon (Crawford, 2020; Lau & Ng, 2014; Rosa &
Tudge, 2013). For MNCs, organizational norms, policies, and culture could construct social
settings. Activities in the Ghana energy sector including the Ministry of Energy, Petroleum
Commission, and National Petroleum Authority, and policies from intergovernmental
organizations, including Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), affect individuals. While the activities may not directly
involve the MNC and SME partnership, they affect inter-firm interactions. The indirect
influences define the organization’s business strategy and expectations in a cross-cultural
partnership.
For MNCs and SMEs, occurrences in the global economy, mass media, and economic
systems shape the organizational culture and outline how the MNC interacts with Indigenous
SMEs. Similarly, historical and cultural influences on SMEs shape social constructs and
interactions with foreign MNCs (Dutta & Dutta, 2013; Dutta & Elers, 2020; Wright et al., 2017).
Thus, the elements in an exosystem that lack a direct relationship with the individual (Crawford,
2020) help direct efficient inter-firm knowledge sharing. Cultural models entrenched in a
microsystem through institutions like schools, family, peers, community associations, and the
workplace, can influence other individuals and settings through their interactions with both the
exosystem and macrosystem.

53
Figure 2
Conceptual Framework
Summary
This chapter presents a detailed literature review on the multifaceted role of ecology in
knowledge sharing between MNCs and SMEs in Ghana's energy sector. Although
Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory does not provide any specific recommendations for
organizational behavior and knowledge sharing, it does present an agenda for exploring the
complex and nuanced influences on an individual's development, which affects the behaviors
exhibited in organizational settings, specifically regarding knowledge sharing. The chapter
further outlines the constituent factors and constraints that affect knowledge sharing, specifically
in Ghana. This study contributes to existing literature with an inter-firm knowledge sharing

54
framework. The next chapter presents a review of the research methodology to be used to obtain
relevant data as evidence to answer the researcher's questions. The chapter includes the research
design overview, research setting, data source, and issues of credibility, trustworthiness, and
ethical considerations.

55
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to understand the factors that affect knowledge sharing
between MNCs and SMEs in cross-cultural settings, specifically in Ghana's energy sector. The
study further sought to discover each participant's unique perspective on the individual and
environmental factors that affect such knowledge sharing behavior. This chapter describes the
qualitative research methodology used to answer research questions. The chapter further outlines
the data collection methodology involving population, sampling, and data analysis.
Qualitative research helps to understand different socially constructed worldviews and
individual interpretations of a phenomenon. Qualitative research's inductive, subjective, and
contextual nature provides rich insights into holistic systems and underlying mechanisms
(Bouncken et al., 2020; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Morgan, 2014). Furthermore, an interpretive
line of inquiry assumes multiple realities exist for this phenomenon, and unique meaning-making
provides valuable insights for practice (Burkholder et al., 2019; Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The
participants' experiences and attributions help to understand the factors that hinder or facilitate
knowledge sharing between organizations, thus making interviews the best avenue of inquiry.
This chapter also discusses the study design's credibility, trustworthiness, and ethical
considerations.
Sample and Population
This research study focused on Indigenous SMEs in the energy sector, specifically oil and
natural gas production. The integral role of executive leaders in Ghanaian SMEs as the primary
interface with foreign MNCs and their role in implementing local content requirements prompted
the decision to focus this research on this sample. The population excluded companies involved
in producing other energy sources, including biomass, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower.

56
The SMEs in this study were legally registered with Ghana’s Petroleum Commission, directly
engaged with MNCs in providing a product or service in the upstream sector, and have majority
ownership by Indigenous Ghanaians. The selection of a representative sample from this
population provided an in-depth understanding of the factors that affect knowledge sharing in
Ghana’s energy sector.
The sample for the study consisted of 14 participants in executive leadership positions at
Indigenous SMEs. The research employs a typical purposeful sampling with distinct participant
characteristics consistent with the broader population. A typical purposeful sampling technique
seeks in-depth participant insight that reflects the average person, situation, or phenomenon
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Purposeful sampling guided the
selection of executive leaders in Indigenous SMEs in Ghana’s energy sector to participate in the
study. As such, the participants who agreed to an in-person interview in Ghana or via Zoom
videoconference had the knowledge and experience to contribute meaningful information to the
study.
Instrumentation
The method for data collection was semi-structured interviews. As a qualitative data
collection method, semi-structured interviews assist in obtaining comparable data across
participants (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Semi-structured interviews
allow unique experiences and viewpoints to emerge (Bouncken et al., 2020; Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). The research employed a series of open-ended questions addressing the specific
components of the research questions and conceptual framework. Appendix A and Table A1
shows the interview protocol. The interview protocol ensured consistency in constructing and
conducting interviews systematically and comprehensively (Burkholder et al., 2019). The

57
protocol also contains potential probes, i.e., follow-up questions seeking to obtain in-depth
narratives related to participant responses (Bouncken et al., 2020).
The university institutional review board approved the semi-structured open-ended
interviews for this phenomenological. The primary value of this interview method is the
flexibility that allows the participants to elaborate on their individual experiences and
perspectives (Bouncken et al., 2020; Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Moreover, the predetermined
wording and sequence of questions systematically foster responses' comparability yet possess the
flexibility to derive additional insights with probes (Bouncken et al., 2020; Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Participants reflect on their experiences in executive leadership as they relate to
knowledge sharing between MNCs and SMEs in the energy sector. The study participants
provided explicit permission to commence the interview after acknowledging their right to
continue or withdraw at any time.
Data Collection
The data collection began upon approval by the University of Southern California (USC)
Institutional Review Board (IRB). I collected field notes during the interviews to capture
participant behavior, as this provided additional insight into the quality of the dialogue.
Descriptive and reflective field notes are detailed written accounts of what researchers see, hear,
and experience in collecting data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Earl, 2021). Every participant granted
explicit consent to record the interview for accuracy. Furthermore, interviews took place in safe
and comfortable locations to ensure participant confidentiality. Finally, I disclosed the study’s
intent to keep all information obtained confidential and interpreted solely for the dissertation.
The data collection process for in-depth interviews included identifying the stakeholders,
developing the interview guide that included setting up and conducting the interview,

58
summarizing critical data, outlining the data analysis, and transcription (Burkholder et al., 2019).
The interview guide consisted of topical questions, e.g., general background inquiries, specific
questions on knowledge and expertise, and leadership in the energy sector. More pointedly, the
interview guide organized the line of inquiry and the participants’ responses in a standardized
manner (Burkholder et al., 2019). In advance of interviews, mock interviews served as a
mechanism to ensure interview questions yield the same meaning to all participants.
The interviews occurred face-to-face in Ghana and via Zoom videoconference between
June and July 2023. Fourteen executive leaders from Indigenous SMEs participated in the
interviews, with an average of one hour of conversation for each participant (see Appendix A).
Semi-structured interviews aim to understand the participants’ perceptions of knowledge sharing
in cross-cultural contexts. Data collection ended when saturation occurred after 14 interviews.
Saturation arises when the continued data collection produces no new or significant insight
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). An electronic device recorded the interview data after obtaining
informed consent explicitly from all participants.
Data Analysis
A thorough review of interview transcripts and field notes was essential for interpreting
participant data. Data analysis includes obtaining a general sense of the data, discerning themes
from participant responses, identifying frequent irregularities in the data, and outlining tentative
findings pertinent to answering the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The data,
systematically and rigorously collected, serves as the unit of analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
Data analysis allows researchers to assign constructs and connections to participants’ inferred
meanings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As this study relied primarily on interviews, the data
analysis process intended to understand participants’ in-depth experiences through

59
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems as the conceptual framework. The classification and
interpretation of the data gathered contribute to sense-making (Flick, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). As such, the data analysis identified individual and environmental factors that affected
knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector.
Data analysis for this phenomenological study was based on a thematic analysis. The data
analysis aims to make sense of the data by consolidating, reducing, and coherently interpreting
participant experiences (Harley & Cornelissen, 2022; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), and to
understand factors that either facilitate or hinder knowledge sharing as outlined in the research
questions. I reviewed the transcripts and field notes after the interview to determine common
themes or patterns. I also organized the transcripts, notes, and recordings and managed to ensure
data security. The notes and transcripts were transcribed manually into a Microsoft Word
document format, stored digitally on a USB drive, and kept safely. The data collection phase
included data coding with specific designations and indemnifying characteristics to assist in the
data analysis. Coding helps to organize the data and aids in managing and retrieving its pieces
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The documentation of observations, descriptions of physical settings, and patterns that
emerged during interviews supplemented recorded interviews. Detailed notes in a reflexivity
journal allowed for gathering nuanced real-world data on participant’s experiences. Reflexivity
in the data analysis process is a continual exercise in self-reflection that allows for deeper
understanding by providing context-specific data (Earl, 2020; Stenfors et al., 2020). The
rationale for the reflexivity journal was to outline influences of positionality, worldview, and
bias that could influence the data (Burkholder et al., 2019). Data analysis began during the data
collection process to identify tentative themes and emerging constructs. Merriam and Tisdell

60
(2016) endorse this approach, noting that simultaneous data collection and analysis prevent
unfocussed and repetitious work.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness are essential to ensuring the integrity of the research
study. According to Stenfors et al. (2020), four benchmarks used to assess the trustworthiness of
a study are credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability. Establishing credibility
and trustworthiness was vital because qualitative research assumes multiple realities exist, and
the subjective construction of reality impacts an individual interpretation of any phenomenon
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Researchers conclude that qualitative research seeks to understand
the nature of reality and paradigms (Stenfors et al., 2020); hence trustworthiness accounts for the
rigor of the inquiry process. For example, Harley and Cornelissen (2022) reiterated that rigor in
qualitative research is about transparency in disclosing unexpected observations and challenging
the researcher's assumptions, not merely because the study followed a rigid data collection and
analysis protocol. The study design ensured that the research questions, central concepts from the
conceptual framework, and interview questions aligned to bolster its credibility. Before
interviewing participants, I conducted pilot interviews with peers to scrutinize the questions'
accuracy and avoid subjective interpretation. The final questions selected for the study excluded
leading and ambiguous questions. I adhered to a clear audit trail that traces back to sources. The
audit trail comprises interview data, a reflexive journal, and other notes that make it possible for
another researcher to validate the findings of a study by following the trail outlined (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
I recorded notes throughout the interviews in a reflexive journal to capture observations
and reflections on positionality, epistemology, and intersectionality, and to further establish

61
trustworthiness. The reflexive journal helps contextualize the study and provides rich data to
support transferability (Bouncken et al., 2020). This strategy assists in identifying both
commonalities and irregularities and minimizes bias (Bouncken et al., 2020; Earl, 2021). The
process includes Interviewee Transcript Review (ITR) that enables participants to review
interview transcripts for accuracy and to minimize an erroneous interpretation of responses. ITR
provides participants the opportunity to provide feedback on the interpretations and conclusions
drawn from the data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The participants get copies of the interview
transcripts to review responses and confirm their accuracy before including responses in the data
analysis process. The choice of the ITR for the participant's approval was to avoid projecting
personal interpretations onto participant experiences.
Ethical Considerations
This research study employed several strategies to ensure compliance with ethical
standards. Safeguarding against misconduct and impropriety promotes the integrity of the study
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Earl, 2021; Stenfors et al., 2020). Ethicality in research involves a
conscious adherence to values of respect, nonmaleficence, and justice (AluwihareSamaranayake, 2012). The ethical strategies included voluntary participation, explicit consent,
confidentiality, and beginning with the data collection process only after the explicit approval
and guidance of the USC IRB. The IRB requires researchers to implement conscientious and
ethical procedures to ensure that the rights of human subjects are protected in the course of
conducting the research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I disclosed the purpose of the study and
ensured that the participants understood their right to ask questions prior to, during, and after the
interview. Participants were informed of their right to decline to answer any question at any
juncture. At the outset, I explained the purpose of the data gathered from the interviews and

62
assured participants that information regarding their specific organization would not be disclosed
to maintain their anonymity.
As this study involves organizations with cross-cultural and cross-border perspectives, I
was mindful to clarify any cultural nuances to avoid misinterpretations. Recognizing and
respecting cultural norms and Indigenous cultures allows participants to engage without fear of
retribution or of violating cultural structures (De Long & Fahey, 2000; Earl, 2021). Similarly,
Aluwihare-Samaranayake (2012) further reiterated the need for transparency by taking into
consideration the diverse sociocultural, economic, and political contexts of participants’ lived
experiences. Interview data and analysis records were kept in a password-protected computer
hard drive. There was no personally identifying information recorded or used in the process.
Finally, I informed the participants of the presence of the recording device and its specific role in
capturing accurate information. At the conclusion of the interview and subsequent analysis for
the dissertation, I discarded the interview transcripts.
Summary
Chapter Three outlined the research method, design, data collection, instrumentation, data
analysis procedure, population and samples, trustworthiness, and ethical considerations. The
chapter further outlined the suitability of the research method and design to address research
questions. The discussion on the population and samples included an explanation of the distinct
requirements for the study, which was vital to obtaining in-depth, rich, and appropriate data from
the participants. In discussing the ethical considerations, the research design paid specific
attention to moral conduct and judgment before the study, during the data collection and analysis
process, and during the reporting and storage of research data. Chapter Four discusses the
analysis and findings.

63
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this phenomenological study was to understand the factors that affect
knowledge sharing between MNCs and SMEs in cross-cultural settings, specifically in Ghana’s
energy sector. The conceptual framework, based upon Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems
theory, identified both direct and indirect influences on knowledge sharing. Furthermore, the
chapter includes a synthesis of participant responses and highlights pertinent quotes. This chapter
focused on the study’s findings, analyses of semi-structured interviews, and emerging themes in
response to the two research questions:
1. What individual factors affect cross-cultural knowledge sharing between MNCs and
SMEs in Ghana’s energy sector?
2. What environmental factors affect cross-cultural knowledge sharing between MNCs
and SMEs in Ghana’s energy sector?
The chapter starts with a description of the research participants, an outline of their professional
experience, and their respective organization’s primary business. The findings and brief
discussion for each of the research questions follow, as well as a final summary of findings
which concludes the chapter.
Participants
The participants in this qualitative research were executive leaders in Indigenous SMEs
in Ghana's energy sector, including chief executive officers, general managers, managing
directors, heads of departments, and project managers. The participant selection aimed to
develop a framework for understanding the antecedents, factors, and barriers that affect
knowledge sharing between organizations in cross-cultural contexts. The participants were all
employees of Indigenous SME companies and had firsthand experience working with foreign

64
MNCs. Thus, their interactions provide an in-depth understanding of the factors that affect
knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector. The SME organizations in this study were all
legally registered with Ghana’s Petroleum Commission, directly engaged with MNCs in
providing a product or service and owned 100% by Indigenous Ghanaians. Table 1 depicts
participant demographic information, including the participant-assigned pseudonym, gender, role
type, industry segment, and business type.
Table 1
Study Participant Demographic Characteristics
Participant
pseudonym Gender Role type Industry segment Business type
Alvin Male Project Manager Upstream Engineering services
Bradley Male Project Manager Upstream Heavy equipment
Installation
Carson Male Project Manager Upstream Drilling and production
support
Daphne Female Project Manager Upstream Project management
and supply chain
Edison Male Chief Executive Officer Upstream Installation
Fernando Male General Manager Upstream Engineering services
Grayson Male General Manager Upstream Equipment and material
supply
Hamilton Male Chief Executive Officer Upstream Fabrication
Ismelda Female Chief Executive Officer Upstream Testing and inspections
Jasper Male Chief Executive Officer Upstream Fabrication
Kennedy Male Chief Executive Officer Upstream Heavy Equipment
Installation
Lawson Female General Manager Upstream Engineering services
Malone Male Project Manager Upstream Drilling and production
support
Navarro Male Chief Executive Officer Upstream Project management
and supply chain

65
Of the 14 interviews, nine occurred face-to-face in Ghana, and the remaining five
conducted via Zoom videoconference. The preference for in-person interviews was due to a
presupposition of gaining rich data by being in the physical space with the participants. All
participants consented to the confidential interview; each interview lasted about 60 minutes on
average. The participants varied in professional experience and gender, and the SME
organizations varied by the type of product or service offered to the market. Two participants
declined to have the interview recorded despite the assurance of anonymity and confidentiality.
Thematic Analysis
The data analysis of participant responses sought to identify recurring themes relevant to
individual and environmental factors that affected knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector.
The subjective attribute of qualitative research was evident during data collection, interpretation,
and coding of participant responses to identify recurring themes. I reviewed interview transcripts
and searched for patterns across the participant responses to identify specific keywords and
phrases that represented recurring perspectives. The themes that emerged were based on analyses
of participant diction and the participants’ ascribed meaning to specific words and phrases. This
analysis considered frequency, significance, and alignment with the two research questions.
Table 2 presents the familiar phrases from the data analysis, codes, and themes.

66
Table 2
Thematic Analysis with Coding and Themes
Common phrases or terms Codes Emerging themes
Trust
Integrity
Confidence
Willing to risk
Vulnerable
Mutual benefit
Mutual vulnerability Bidirectional trust and
reciprocity
Bias
Stereotype
Superiority complex
Inferiority complex
Bias, stereotype, attribution of
value Perception of competence
Strategy
Market share
Competitive advantage
Profit seeking
Competition
Competing priorities and
business goals Divergent value propositions
Diversity and inclusion
Exploit
Racism
Colonialism
Slave trade
Imperialism
Media portrayal
Historical and cultural
influences
Ripple effects of race, history,
and culture
Enforcer/enforcement
Facilitator
Advocate
Local content
Indigenous participation
Local government
Government agencies Regulatory framework and
intervention
Technology
Technological know-how
Upstream
Offshore environment
Ideal partner
Organizational culture and
structure
Organizational mechanisms; the
offshore factor

67
Findings for Research Question 1
The first research question and related interview probes focused on the individual factors
affecting cross-cultural knowledge sharing between MNCs and SMEs in Ghana’s energy sector.
This research question aligned closely with direct influences facilitating or inhibiting knowledge
sharing between organizations. The direct influences identified in the ecological systems theory
as the microsystem include immediate circles of influence, repeated interaction that reinforces
individual epistemology, and construct individual worldviews (Crawford, 2020; Watson, 2017).
Table 3 presents findings for Research Question 1 and three emerging themes of bidirectional
trust, perception of competence, and divergent value propositions.
Table 3
Research Question 1 Themes
Theme Explanation Framework alignment
Bidirectional trust and
reciprocity
Mutual vulnerability,
integrity, empathy Microsystem
Perception of competence Bias, stereotype, attribution
of value Microsystem, exosystem
Divergent value propositions Competing priorities and
business goals Microsystem
Bidirectional Trust and Reciprocity
All 14 participants indicated trustworthiness as a critical knowledge-sharing facilitator in
cross-cultural settings. The overarching reason participants formed such opinion was, as Bradley
described, a “diversity as a result of two groups coming from different worlds.” However, the
responses underscore that interorganizational knowledge sharing does not occur in a vacuum but
transacted between individual employees within autonomous enterprises. As such, trust is a

68
critical mediator of interactions. Participant responses revealed that cooperation built on trust
fosters a willingness to engage openly to share both tacit and procedural knowledge either faceto-face or via non-contact means. Consistent with this finding, researchers consider trust a
“compulsory starting point” for interorganizational strategic collaboration (Thanetsunthorn &
Wuthisatian, 2019, p. 219). Table 3 presents participants’ statements that reflect the perceived
sources of trust and the multidimensional role of trust in the knowledge-sharing process.
Table 4
Role of Trust in Knowledge Sharing Process
Source of trust Responses
Human trait “We try to be open with information, whatever information we have, be
it positive or negative, we try to be upfront with it.”
Human trait “So, we have to assume that they come with the best intentions because
without that we can’t even do anything”
Human trait
“It all boils down to integrity. If something costs a certain amount, you
don't buy and then you tell your partners something else. So,
integrity is big.”
Human trait “Mutual trust in each other is the only way to work together and share
ideas. There is no contract in the universe that can guarantee that.”
Contractual
obligation
“Without trust spelled out by legitimate documentation, the JV is dead
on arrival.”
Contractual
obligation
“Trust is so crucial, but we establish it by articulating where we stand,
what we believe in, but also our current competencies.”
Contractual
obligation
“If we have the legal documents that will put down who does what and
who is bringing what, we don’t need to think about trust,
documentation spells it all out.”
Contractual
obligation “I don’t have any basis to trust someone I don’t know.”
Executive leaders’ responses highlighted a mutual expectation in a trust dynamic between
MNCs and SMEs. While all participants affirmed the critical role of trust as a prerequisite for
interorganizational commitment, trust manifests in how knowledge occurs, and how individual

69
values reflect the organizational values. The impact of trust and mistrust emerged either as a
human trait or fostered by contractual obligations.
Participants repeatedly used the word “trust” in their responses. However, upon further
probing, their subjective interpretation ranged from “a willingness to risk” (Alvin), “a confidence
in the information provided” (Bradley), and “an assurance that they [the partner] will do what
they say they will do” (Hamilton). Other participants viewed trust as “honoring the contractual
obligation” (Jasper), and “proof of competence” (Kennedy). Despite the differences in the
interpretation, all participants agreed to the definition of trust as one party’s confidence and
willingness to rely on or become vulnerable toward a partner in an exchange relationship (Zhong
et al., 2017; Udomkit et al., 2020). The following subsections highlight findings aligned with
bidirectional trust as a direct influence on knowledge sharing.
Dynamics of Knowledge Flow
To be effective, knowledge exchange between organizations must be reciprocal and
regulated by mutual trust. Consistent with the existing literature, the participants emphasized a
phenomenon that Zhong et al. (2017) define as unidirectional trust, which is the trust that one
partner organization offered to a counterpart that differed from the reciprocal level of trust
demonstrated by the counterpart. Fernando summarized his experience as follows, “Many
multinationals [MNCs] start off with the perception that the local companies have zero
knowledge, and they are here to teach us.” As part of Indigenous SMEs that hold such opinions
of MNCs, the participants stressed the need for SMEs to establish trust and equally demand the
same through their identity and capability. This dynamic reinforced what Lawson termed “oneway traffic,” and explained as “one party acting as the knowledge-giver and the other one as the
knowledge-receiver.” It was evident from executive leaders’ perspectives that MNCs that enter

70
host nations without a mindset to leverage their local expertise will not learn from the Indigenous
partners.
However, Edison expressed a different view that undercuts the opinion of other
participants, by conceding that, “We have always been at the receiving end. So, 99% of the time,
it is the foreign partner who rather wants to enter a joint venture with you [Indigenous SME].”
This concession was a recurring theme in participants’ responses. The inference of “being at the
receiving end” stems from the observation that MNCs are typically the entities seeking global
partners as part of their market expansion strategy, as such the Indigenous enterprises enter into
most joint venture agreements with limited bargaining power. For this reason, Bradley
grudgingly substantiated, “Even if we don’t trust them, we still have to put up with them.”
In low trust dynamics, the perception exists that one or both parties are uncooperative,
untrustworthy, and uncommitted. As such the parties require strict contracts that address every
conceivable business contingency to protect their organization’s investment. For example, seven
participants perceived their foreign partners as not trusting them entirely, as such required
onerous contracts that seek to “block every loophole imaginable” (Alvin) to the extent that the
“contracts become impossible to execute” (Kennedy). According to Navarro, SMEs perceive
MNC partners view knowledge sharing as unidirectional, as such, the only recourse is to “rely on
contractual terms to force them [MNCs] to do what they won’t like to do.” Several executive
leaders shared the notion of trust as an evolving construct. From their Indigenous perspective, the
participants conveyed a perception of trust developing over time, noting that MNCs were
“foreigners” (Carson), “strangers” (Alvin), and organizations “who openly come together strictly
for business” (Lawson). Edison summed up the sentiment, “We don’t know them, and they don’t
know us, so we generate trust as we go along.” Similarly, Kennedy added, “You can only hope

71
the foreign company is who they say they are. You just trust that they will not cheat you, just
because you have decided you will not cheat them.”
However, some participants in the study demonstrated a willingness to trust a foreign
partner and engage in partnership without strict due diligence for two reasons: (a) they perceive
the foreigner as having a vital resource (Alvin), and (b) they are willing to take a “leap of faith”
(Jasper). The participants, while they acknowledged their approach as being in a minority, added
that “no foreign partner will do that.” This viewpoint underscores the prevalence of the
unidirectional nature of trust relationships, which several participants believe undermined
knowledge sharing. The Indigenous SMEs in this study were willing to accept one-way traffic,
fully aware that the foreign partner may not extend the same trust to the Indigenous organization.
Edison added, “The fact that a foreigner comes, it is assumed that he's coming with the financial
muscle, technical know-how, and all the things that come with it.”
For the SMEs in Ghana, the assumption of foreign MNCs' financial ability and technical
know-how served as an incentive for partnership, irrespective of the nature of trust demonstrated.
Grayson described MNCs’ attitude to learning from Indigenous partners, "They [MNCs] ignore
our contextual knowledge as if we are a blank slate.” However, as Ismelda clarified the SMEs’
reality in this regard, “So trust or no trust, we have little choice but to go with what they say.”
Similarly, Bengoa and Kaufmann (2016) acknowledged the influence of mutual trust on
knowledge creation and sharing in developing competitive advantages. However, 11 of the 14
participants highlighted an underlying suspicion that foreign partners intentionally retain critical
knowledge to secure their contracts. From this perspective, the participants explained that
knowledge sharing starts with transparency in every aspect of contract negotiations and contract

72
execution. This transparency results from both MNCs’ and SMEs’ willingness to “put everything
on the table” (Alvin) and be “an open book” (Lawson).
Most participants held the opinion that such transparency inherently presents a
disadvantage to a foreign entity that considers itself as the possessor of the technical knowledge,
and whose primary reason for entering the partnership was to exploit market opportunities. From
their responses, Indigenous SMEs also presumed foreign MNCs viewed knowledge sharing and
subsequent knowledge transfer as a form of creative destruction. In knowledge sharing, creative
destruction describes acquiring new knowledge that replaces existing know-how. Participants’
perception of foreign MNCs' unidirectional approach to knowledge sharing appears consistent
with Holcombe’s (2022) assertion that creative destruction inherent in a capitalist economy
enabled organizations to get ahead but threatened those who wanted to stay ahead. As
representatives of Indigenous SMEs, the participants overwhelmingly asserted that MNCs in
Ghana’s energy sector seek to “stay ahead," suggesting that foreign MNCs only shared enough
information to satisfy legislative requirements.
Bradley shared offered a first-hand account of interaction with MNC employees, “They
begin to drag their legs, and that also affects the trust then I begin to raise issues, and then the
trust becomes questionable along the line.” The phrase “drag their legs” alluded to several
participants’ suspicion of foreign MNCs’ unwillingness to share knowledge based on a perceived
reluctance to comply with the succession process that required MNCs to effectively train an
Indigenous counterpart to perform the same technical task over a specified period. For example,
Ismelda offered one perspective, “I understand why they don’t say anything important, like they
are keeping the secret sauce for themselves. But think about it, why would I train someone to
take over my business?”

73
Mutual trust resides at the core of the perceived bidirectional nature of knowledge
sharing in cross-cultural settings. This viewpoint aligned with researchers’ assertion that
individuals readily shared knowledge if they anticipated a reciprocation of their knowledgesharing efforts (Ouakouak et al., 2021). Indigenous SMEs viewed their foreign partners as
having to share information in such a manner that its usefulness was short-lived, thus forcing
reliance on their foreign knowledge required to sustain a long-term investment. Several
participants believed foreign partners made short-term and opportunity-driven decisions in line
with such business-driven orientation. The participant observation harkened back to the prevalent
knowledge-giver and knowledge-receiver dynamic that undermined the mutual exchange of
knowledge. Ismelda stated categorically, “We [Indigenous SMEs] are new to the game. These
guys [foreign MNCs] will take advantage of any partnership as long as they can until we catch
up someday.”
Building mutual trust to foster reciprocal knowledge sharing takes time. Moreover,
foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs develop trust relationships without prior interactions. Thus,
as Curado and Vieira (2019) contend, such business partnerships especially demand mutual trust
to facilitate any meaningful interaction, including knowledge sharing behavior. In addition to the
direct effect of bidirectional trust on knowledge sharing, another critical influence that emerged
was the issue of brokering trust with either the organization or the individual within it. The
following subsection discusses this observation.
Trust Divergence
A dichotomy exists between individual and organizational trust as separate influencers in
the knowledge exchange. Both MNCs and SMEs are comprised of individuals from a myriad of
backgrounds. The diversity adds to the complexity of defining an organization’s identity and

74
espoused values. Jasper highlighted the phenomenon from his perspective, “The company and
the people in it are two different people. I don’t trust the company, but some of these people we
work with are good people, and I can trust them.” Despite conceptualizing trust in organizations
as a collective orientation, trust divergence describes how individual members develop and
possess different trust perceptions from the presumed collectively held perception toward a
partner (Brattström et al., 2018).
Several participants’ responses revealed that despite MNC organizations developing a
coherent knowledge-sharing strategy before embarking on cross-cultural partnerships, the
individuals within the organizations performed the knowledge-sharing behavior. The
presumption of an organization’s collectively held behaviors assumed that an individual would
repress the unique influences of their microsystems to adopt the values of an organization.
Participants described this divergence with phrases including “people are people” (Alvin) and
“people come with their own baggage” (Hamilton). Daphne substantiated this perception among
SMEs by sharing, “The company [foreign MNCs] can decide to act a certain way, but I don’t
think people suddenly forget who they are and follow every company’s instruction. I don’t think
so.”
Despite the similarities of experiences that may exist in any organizational setting,
differences existed in individuals’ microsystems over different periods of time. As a result,
exposure to varying experiences led to differences in the encoding and interpretation of events.
The differences may be due to factors including family background, educational background,
peers, and interactions within their immediate community. In the context of knowledge sharing,
an MNC and SME can explicitly state their goals for collaboration through their business plan
and contract documents. Yet, individual employee behavior could undermine such goals.

75
Hamilton echoed this sentiment by stressing, "The foreign company is not a human being.”
Lawson explained further, “Their [foreign MNC] strategy is only as effective as the people who
work there, so no matter what we believe, it is the worker we are dealing with.”
The participants’ frequent reference to trust divergence challenged the assumption that
shared meaning among unique individuals builds a uniform understanding within an
organization. Knowledge sharing between organizations is transacted by the individuals within
the respective organizations. In his reflection on the difference between the MNC organizations
and the individual employees, Lawson posed a rhetorical question, “Who exactly are we
[Indigenous SMEs] shaking hands with?” Participant responses repeatedly pointed to this
phenomenon where a partner can trust an organization and its values but cannot trust the
individual employee representing the organization. The reverse is true.
Several participants were introspective, noting the existence of trust divergence in the
Indigenous contexts where a company sets a process to facilitate knowledge sharing. Yet,
individuals within the organizations preferred informal channels outside the organizational
process. From an Indigenous SME perspective, a positive aspect of trust divergence was that it
created an avenue to relate to individuals at a personal level. Personal relationships developed
trust among individuals and facilitated the sharing of tacit and conceptual knowledge. For
example, while participants overwhelmingly view MNC organizations as rigid and structured
entities, by comparison, the participants view employees in MNC organizations as collaborative
and flexible. Participants’ statements such as “We are in it together” (Edison), “We are in the
same boat” (Alvin), and “It’s all about a give and take” (Navarro) exemplified this perception.
Ultimately, executive leaders’ responses affirmed that trust divergence added to the
complexity of knowledge sharing practices. The pattern of thought deduced from participant

76
responses indicates that perceptions of trust may align or deviate from the organization’s
presumed collectively held values. In a positive manifestation, knowledge sharing will occur
despite the organizational stance or strategy, but in the negative expression, inefficiencies in
knowledge sharing practices hamper organizational goals irrespective of the organization’s wellintentioned strategy.
Perception of Competence
The second theme of the first research question was the perception of competence in
knowledge-sharing behavior. Individual biases and group stereotypes shape the opinions and
expectations that individuals develop of partner organizations. Abe (2020) concurs, noting that
developing meaningful interpersonal relationships demands mutually beneficial and nonpaternalistic partnerships due to cultural stereotypes and biases. Such perceptions and
expectations, both negative and positive, directly affected the knowledge-sharing process.
Hamilton described a glaring disconnect; “They [foreign MNCs] claim to do all their due
diligence before forming JVs, but as soon as they sign contracts, they retreat to ingrained beliefs
and strange stereotypes.” From the participant interviews, the predominant assertion of SMEs
was that bias and stereotypes directly influenced the foreign MNCs' first impressions of their
Indigenous partners. However, the impact of these perceptions on the knowledge-sharing process
varied from individuals developing coping strategies and defense mechanisms to an opportunity
to challenge preconceptions.
Entrenched Narratives and Paths of Least Resistance
Preconceived notions of individuals create stereotypical composites of a group’s identity
and capability. Indigenous SMEs acknowledged this reality and suggested its direct influence on
foreign SMEs' attitudes to knowledge exchange. For Indigenous SMEs in Ghana’s energy sector,

77
the interview responses demonstrated a heightened awareness of perceptions held by their
foreign counterparts, serving as the guideposts in their interactions. Bradley articulated this sense
of awareness, “We already know what they think of us.” However, the awareness seemed to
nurture an understanding of foreign perceptions toward the general society, not a specific
individual, thus using this knowledge to develop response mechanisms to lessen the effect on
business relationships. This observation was contrary to the presumption that negative
stereotypes would illicit resentment and outrage from the Indigenous SME participants. The
responses indicated participants’ willingness to prove their knowledge and competence through
their technical skills and business acumen. Participants also used several statements to highlight
this familiar reaction to negative stereotypes, including “We have to prove them wrong,”
(Daphne) and “They will be shocked to know we are smarter than they thought” (Malone).
Surprisingly, the participants' demeanor demonstrated a collective understanding that
foreign MNCs' perception resulted from ignorance and media messaging perpetuating the
negative racial stereotypes of Africa in Western media. As such, Bradley elaborated further, “Till
today, Western media does a good job painting us [Indigenous SMEs] as backward and
uncivilized savages.” The inference from this statement was that such narratives created a lens
through which the foreign MNCs erroneously judged indigenous competence. As Kennedy
pointedly remarked, “There is little that I can do to change their bias.” Similarly, Grayson
mentioned, “We [Indigenous SMEs] see it more as ignorance than hatred,” as such, the negative
stereotypes do not significantly hinder interactions and knowledge-sharing behavior.
Another observation related to the Indigenous SMEs' perception of foreign MNCs'
characterizing their competence was their deliberate choice to focus on an end state. Despite the
presumed arrogance of foreign MNCs, executive leaders evaluated the economic tradeoffs and

78
concluded it was worth the business opportunity. Participant responses revealed that SMEs focus
on limited joint venture opportunities in the oil and gas market, thus willing to overlook
condescension and remarks based on negative stereotypes. Jasper shared, "That is the narrative
out there, and they [foreign MNCs] bought into that long before they got here. We have come
together for business, who cares what they think of me?”
Stereotypes undermine cooperative behavior that facilitates knowledge sharing. Ten out
of 14 participants reported individual encounters where preconceived notions of Africans in
general, and Ghanaians specifically, including forcing Indigenous SMEs to “stay in their
corners” (Edison) and “keep valuable information to ourselves” (Malone). Additionally,
participants admitted stereotypes impede knowledge sharing by creating “a mental block when
you assume your JV partner don’t know anything” (Edison), and “sometimes they don’t even
want to hear our side of the story.” The observation related to conceptual and tacit knowledge
exchange often required meaningful interactions and informal discussions to share knowledge.
However, participant responses overwhelmingly demonstrated a resolve not to allow stereotypes
and biases to affect Indigenous SMEs’ self-efficacy. In support of this confidence in Indigenous
SMEs’ competency, Jasper, articulated a viewpoint based on his belief in his own ability to
perform required tasks irrespective of prevailing stereotypes, “I didn't go knocking on the door to
be part of their service, I was already out. They came to find me.”
The interviews revealed a tendency for foreign MNCs to align themselves with
Indigenous SME executive leaders with international experience, either through education or
having lived temporarily in a Western country. Participants observed this difference in the
interactions through the “vibe we get” and “subtle hints” that question Indigenous SMEs’
competence (Kennedy). Participant responses suggested foreign MNCs gravitated towards

79
individuals with whom they shared a perceived identity. For example, as Bradley suspects,
“They [foreign MNC] tell them more than they would tell some of us, in the same JV
arrangement.” As such, even when one partner seeks to share knowledge, the other will be
“mentally closed off” (Fernando), eliminating the opportunity for knowledge sharing.
Participants recognized that the stereotypes encouraged a biased logic by foreign MNCs
to categorize Indigenous SMEs according to a perceived ability to collaborate effectively.
Kennedy explained her experience with foreign MNCs attempt to make a distinction between
Indigenous SMEs who “get it,” who have the right competency, and understand the “global
business culture.” The unintended outcome of this alignment was the division it created among
the SMEs, an unintended in-group and out-group among Indigenous SMEs, which directly
impacted knowledge-sharing behavior. Lawson summarized this observation with a personal
anecdote, “Because I lived in the U.S. for a while, even though I am Ghanaian, some of them
[foreign MNCs] see me as one of their own, and they speak freely and exchange ideas easily.”
As the participant explained further, the reasoning for that perception was that simply
living overseas or attending school in a Western country validated an executive leader’s
knowledge and competency. Several participants openly admitted their dislike for the role of
stereotypes in knowledge sharing with foreign MNCs, because “that adds to all already complex
process” (Bradley).
A surprising finding was an admission that “biases and stereotypes go both ways”
Hamilton. The statement seemed to be an objective and introspective assessment; however, it
was the outlier in the participant responses related to the effects of stereotypes in knowledgesharing behavior. Upon probing further, Hamilton explained, “Our society has conditioned us
[Indigenous SMEs] about who they [foreign MNCs] are, what they want, and what they know.”

80
While this was an observation by one participant, this viewpoint shed light on the participant’s
ability to overlook condescension and develop a defense mechanism against negative
stereotypes.
Fernando critically pointed out the counterproductive nature of preconceived notions and
stereotypes in the knowledge-sharing process. By accepting the harmful stereotype status quo
and questioning Indigenous SMEs' competence, well-intentioned foreign MNCs seeking to share
essential technical knowledge wasted time and resources by reinventing the knowledge wheel. In
this context, instead of the MNC engaging the Indigenous SME at an equal competency level,
there exists a tendency to exchange conceptual knowledge at a developmental level. Beyond the
rift that discounting another organization’s expertise caused, Fernando pointed out, “They
[foreign MNC] probably end up transferring knowledge that is already existent.”
Goliath Factor: Power Distance Effect
Power distance refers to “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions
and organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 98).
Drawing upon Hofstede’s seminal work, factors including financial resources, political clout, and
preferential treatment for foreign investors created a power dynamic between foreign MNCs and
Indigenous SMEs. However, participant interview responses showed that SMEs differ in their
acceptance and expectation of the power dynamics between Indigenous enterprises and foreign
counterparts. From the participant’s responses, the predominant viewpoint was Indigenous
SMEs' recognition of foreign partners' financial and technological advantages and their direct
impact on knowledge-sharing behavior. Hamilton shared, “They [foreign MNCs] are the ones
with the financial muscle. We [Indigenous SMEs] can push and push, but in the end, they are the
ones with the power.” Another participant reluctantly concurred, noting, “They [foreign MNCs]

81
call the shots, and in many cases, get to share whatever they want” (Malone). The viewpoint
discussed by the participant suggested that foreign MNCs controlled the knowledge-sharing
process, thereby selecting the nature of the information provided to partner organizations.
The immediate local community structures within which the Indigenous organizations
existed and operated contributed to the power dynamic between the foreign MNC and the
Indigenous partner. For example, Ghana’s cultural setting is characterized by a high-power
distance culture that tends to accept a hierarchical order as the norm. Several Indigenous SMEs
recognized and accepted the power dynamic; however, they elected not to challenge that
worldview to appear accommodating to foreign partners. Hamilton stated, “If that is what it will
take to have them tell us what we need to know,” seemingly leveraging that perceived power
distance as a business strategy. A social structure that discourages the interrogation of the status
quo placed foreign MNCs with financial resources and technological know-how at the top of the
social hierarchy. Daphne quipped, “We [Indigenous SMEs] treat them [foreign SMEs] as gods.
How do we question their expertise in repairing a pump or turbine?” Edison added:
And the foreign partner will say all the juicy things, and we [Indigenous SMEs] will
agree. We sign all kinds of NDAs and non-compete agreements. The last thing that
comes up is knowledge and training. And then, when he leaves, the Ghanaian partner will
lament over every fact; then you ask why they didn’t say it in front of a foreign partner.
He's afraid he may lose that opportunity.
However, the challenge for SMEs appeared to be the weak position in which they found
themselves after relinquishing power to foreign MNCs to secure their trust. From Daphne’s
perspective, “It is as if we sell our souls because just when you secure the agreement, they
[foreign MNCs] dictate every word to us.” In the context of knowledge exchange, foreign MNCs

82
implicitly assume the position of the “authority on the knowledge, especially when they are the
ones bringing the technology” (Malone). Yet, executive leaders shared a mixed view of the
tradeoff, and a majority considered it “a huge challenge” and “stumbling block” to any exchange
of knowledge (Navarro). Navarro’s sentiment was similar to the response from Ismelda, “I share
what I know because I don't have what they have.
The statement was in response to the question of what motivated SME organizations to
share knowledge with foreign partners. It was evident from such responses that Indigenous
SMEs knowingly and willingly accept the status quo power dynamic, judging from their
interpretation of their acceptance with phrases like “It is what it is” and “Welcome to our world”
(Hamilton). A few of the participants, however, challenged the power dynamic as a “slap in the
face,” and admitted that they were “at a disadvantage in our own country because we are going
against Goliath” (Daphne). That admission preceded Daphne’s note of Indigenous SMEs having
to “take a backseat in any training and discussion.” Despite this reality, Kennedy also recognized
that it was not an ideal relationship to foster knowledge sharing, but “if that gives them [foreign
MNC] what they want, I have to manage.”
Finally, both Edison and Malone made a peculiar observation about Indigenous SMEs'
role in undermining their power, thereby limiting their ability to contribute to knowledge
exchange. Edison pointed out the competitive arena in the energy sector that gave rise to
Indigenous SMEs undercutting each other to secure projects. As such, the foreign MNC “can sit
back and wait for the bloodbath to end, to call the shots.” Malone confirmed this sentiment by
adding, “Hardly do the most opinionated company get a JV partner,” which implies that in some
cases, Indigenous SMEs that seek to assert their knowledge and expertise risk losing long-term
partnerships. In the end, Edison summed up the myriad of participant responses, “the local

83
companies that know their lane, and don’t question whatever bright ideas the foreigners come
with, gets the nod.” Thus, knowledge exchange may not occur, because the SMEs choose not to
challenge “Goliath.”
Divergent Value Propositions
Differences in stakeholder priorities between foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs
directly affect knowledge sharing in cross-cultural partnerships. From the participant’s
perspectives, while both enterprises engage in joint ventures to gain access to new markets and
competitive advantage, other secondary objectives not explicitly stated or assumed, exist. For
example, Carson pointed to Indigenous SMEs' role as the “economic backbone” of the local
economy; thus, this expectation compels them to view their successes as “engines of economic
growth” and “change-makers in communities.” However, such an expectation seems not to be a
shared goal. According to the participants, knowledge sharing seeks to satisfy a specific business
objective for foreign MNCs. Hamilton believed, “These people [foreign MNCs] are
businesspeople, and what they care about is the bottom line.” Similarly, Alvin concluded, “It is
clear that they are here to benefit as much as possible. Their goal is to make their profit and find
their way back home.”
All the participants appeared to both acknowledge and understand this reality. As such,
the participants did not seem to harbor any ill will towards foreign MNCs, rather understanding
their singular focus on profit. Carson stated, “Some of them [foreign MNCs] didn’t even
consider exchanging any ideas until they got here, so I don’t blame them.” The participants’
responses demonstrated Indigenous SMEs' awareness of how different priorities create different
expectations of foreign MNCs. The responses ranged from Hamilton’s perspective that, “We
[Indigenous SMEs] knew from the start why they [foreign MNCs] come here, only to make

84
money” to Fernando’s point of view that “They came here to make money, not to fix our
country.” Upon probing further, the participant equated foreign MNCs sharing their knowledge
as a contribution to development in host nations.
Despite the predominant view by participants that the foreign MNC primarily seeks to
profit, compared to the Indigenous SME that seeks a relatively lasting benefit for the local
community, not all participants agreed. For example, Grayson shared a contrary observation,
“Most of the local companies are motivated by money, and not interested in training. They just
want the money.” Specific to Ghana’s oil and gas market, the participants used terminologies
including “fronting,” “a body shop,” “pass-through,” and “rent collectors” to describe the local
SME’s illegal approach to earning maximum profits from the partnership by investing little and
demanding nothing else from foreign partners. The response confirmed another complexity in
knowledge sharing, thus even where the foreign partner sought to exchange project and product
knowledge with its local partners, according to the participant, the Indigenous SMEs may not be
open to such interactions. Edison further added:
It is us [Indigenous SMEs] who throw the process out of the window. Some local
companies are happy to undercut the legal steps and become illegal rent collectors even
though they know it is hurting the rest of us. They don’t provide any real service. For
some, if you can strike a deal to sit at home and collect $15,000 at the end of a month,
what do you care about learning anything?
Some of the differences in stakeholder priorities and value propositions arose out of an
expectation of the partner to “do the right thing.” From another perspective, six out of 14
participants observed that Indigenous SMEs often appealed to the altruism of foreign MNC
counterparts in exchanging knowledge. From that orientation, the Indigenous SMEs “try to be

85
nice,” “not to rattle any cages,” or “win the foreigners with kindness.” However, Jasper noted the
counterproductive nature of such an approach, especially in the context of business partners with
complementary competencies, “We [Indigenous SMEs] treat them [foreign MNCs] like they are
Good Samaritans to save us. No wonder they don’t feel the need to share anything important or
make any meaningful investment.”
The reference to Good Samaritan relates to the Parable of the Good Samaritan in the
Christian Bible where a stranger sees a man physically assaulted and deserted, but rather than
leaving him to die, chooses to care for him (Fong, 2023). The parable intends to espouse the
virtue of caring for a neighbor and altruism at a personal cost. However, from the participant’s
viewpoint, foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs engage in partnerships to gain competitive
business advantages and be “good neighbors.” The inference from participant responses was that
the good neighbor construct was contingent on a mutual attribution of value to the partnership,
not philanthropy. The implication is that knowledge sharing practices for executing energy
projects should not be left to the MNCs to choose out of kindness. Thus, according to Jasper,
foreign MNCs seek market opportunities and competitive advantages, not charity.
Another aspect of divergence in value propositions that emerged during the interviews
was the perceived risk associated with knowledge sharing. Most participants agreed that because
foreign partners typically provided the technology, it was reasonable for them to consider the
business risk of partners divulging proprietary information. However, Indigenous SMEs also
considered the risk of divulging equally crucial contextual information. Fernando expressed,
“We [Indigenous SMEs] have a lot to share too about the facts on the ground, but we can’t just
tell them, [foreign MNCs] everything.” In that same vein, Jasper also commented, “They
[foreign MNCs] keep the actual knowledge to their chest because they can’t afford to help us

86
grow only to become a threat to their business plans.” Loebbecke et al. (2016) refer to this
quagmire as a strategic paradox for interorganizational collaboration by highlighting the
challenge of sharing knowledge while seeking to protect strategic business information.
The reference to “real information” by Jasper was the acknowledgment that contract
obligations may compel the foreign MNC to provide essential documents including instructions
manuals and product specifications. However, the information provided excluded the essential
experiential knowledge that provides the partners with critical conceptual knowledge. Hamilton
also added a unique perspective to the viewpoint expressed, that “knowledge” is critical “trading
commodity” for foreign MNC and Indigenous SMEs working together to exploit a finite natural
resource. According to this participant, “We owe it to future generations of Ghana to invest in
knowledge that will create opportunities for them too.” As such, knowledge sharing is a
prerequisite that foreign MNCs “should not be allowed to take for granted.”
The participants, however, offered contrasting viewpoints on whether to consider
knowledge sharing by foreign MNCs as a responsibility or a courtesy. For several executive
leaders who shared the opinion of foreign MNCs’ profit-seeking agenda, Edison believed that
“any effort to help local companies to learn and to develop was not their duty, but as a kind
gesture to a partner.” Kennedy agreed, “I can’t expect the foreigners doing business here to build
schools and hospitals for us and tell me everything else.” Malone specifically admitted being on
a “need-to-know basis” with foreign partners, understanding that the only knowledge exchanged
was what offered maximum profits in every endeavor. Fernando took a similar stance, “Just
telling us basic facts about equipment is of little use, what we need to know is the why.”
According to the participant, sharing procedural knowledge, instead of conceptual knowledge,
felt like the foreign MNC was unwilling to exchange essential information.

87
The varying participant perspectives demonstrate differences in stakeholder viewpoints
on knowledge exchange between organizations. Further, they demonstrate the complex
influences on knowledge-sharing behaviors and processes. While organizations may have a
shared objective, secondary objectives play an equally critical role in knowledge sharing,
especially for tacit and conceptual knowledge.
Discussion for Research Question 1
Three emergent themes illustrated individual factors that affect MNCs and SMEs in the
knowledge-sharing process. Given the responses shared during the interviews, microsystems and
exosystems influence foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs' interactions and propensity and
urgency to exchange knowledge. However, despite all operating in Ghana’s energy sector, the
varying perspectives underscore that Indigenous SMEs are not a monolith. The findings reiterate
the knowledge-sharing process's complexity, fraught with preconditions and multifaceted
influencing factors (Fait et al. 2019; Newell, 2015).
Each organization constructs its identity and value proposition to attract foreign partners,
and each has a different perception of trust, assessment of competence, and worth for its value
propositions. Trust is an essential mechanism that can effectively facilitate cross-cultural
strategic collaboration. Still, the interview evidence identifies that bidirectional trust effectively
reduces joint venture partnerships' complexity, ultimately facilitating knowledge sharing.
Similarly, while the executive leaders interviewed shared that individual stereotypes affect
perceptions of competence, participants did not unanimously agree on the effect of negative
stereotypes on their organizations. Participant responses alluded to an acknowledgment of the
different objectives of individual organizations; however, the intent to collaborate through joint
venture partnerships superseded differences.

88
Out of the 14 participants interviewed, the overarching observation is the subjective
interpretation of knowledge and knowledge sharing. The observations align with the view that
the critical drivers of knowledge sharing between independent organizations reside at the
individual level (Nguyen et al., 2021; Zheng (2017). From the Indigenous SMEs’ perspectives,
foreign MNCs often approached joint venture partnerships from relatively predictable vantage
points, which may differ from partner expectations. As a result, a divergence in value
propositions potentially becomes a flashpoint that affects interactions and subsequent knowledge
sharing. Based on responses from each participant, the intersecting themes serve as evidence of
the direct influences on interorganizational knowledge sharing.
Findings for Research Question 2
The second research question and related interview probes sought to understand the
environmental factors that affect cross-cultural knowledge sharing between MNCs and SMEs in
Ghana’s energy sector. Table 5 presents findings for Research Question 2 and three emerging
themes: the ripple effects of race, history, and culture; regulatory framework and intervention;
and organizational mechanisms.
Table 5
Research Question 2 Themes
Theme Explanation Framework alignment
Ripple effects of race,
history, and culture
Historical influences, cultural
influences Macrosystem
Regulatory framework and
intervention
Government agencies,
legislative instruments Macrosystem
Organizational mechanisms:
The offshore factor
Organizational culture
(cultural model),
organizational policies
(cultural settings)
Exosystem

89
The findings outlined in this section represent the themes gleaned from all interview participants.
This research question aligned closely with modulating and indirect influences that either
facilitate or inhibit knowledge sharing between organizations. The influences include
interactions between interconnected influencers and external events beyond immediate
environments (Crawford, 2020; Lau & Ng, 2014).
Ripple Effects of Race, History, and Culture
Collaboration between Indigenous SMEs in Ghana and foreign MNCs involves
individuals and groups from diverse backgrounds and histories. The executive leaders
interviewed indicated that MNCs, often from Western nations, have a well-documented history
of colonization and discrimination against African countries, including Ghana. The vestiges of
oppression and racism have repercussions in contemporary business interactions. According to
interview participants, deep-seated prejudice and inequalities in different parts of the world are
potent influences in knowledge sharing. Participants interviewed for this study overwhelmingly
recognize the impact of race and racism in the knowledge-sharing process. However, the varying
participant responses indicate different interpretations and awareness of the indirect impact on
knowledge sharing.
Race Still Matters
Seven out of the 14 executive leaders believed that foreign MNCs’ perception of racial
superiority is rooted in both the colonial superiority complex and systemic racism. Thus, Carson
sarcastically remarked, “It’s a White man’s world, it has always been.” The perception suggests
that the structure of the global marketplace offers inherent advantages to the “White man.”
Lawson recalled personal stories of living in Asia, Europe, and North America, each with its

90
“own version of prejudice,” and each society “treating us Africans as savages as they learned in
their racist books centuries ago.” The participant alluded to entrenched racial characteristics that
portray the Indigenous SME as inferior. Similarly, other participants’ perspectives repeatedly
pointed to systemic racism and imperialist structures as barriers to effective knowledge
exchange.
The participants also acknowledged that the actual events that elicited those perspectives
happened “centuries ago,” but the effects remain evident in their interactions with foreign
MNCs. The participants highlighted this reality with statements such as “they don’t speak to us
as equals” and “in their minds, we are inferior.” Alvin believed, “They come in thinking this is
Africa, they have been programmed that every Black person is stupid.” In response to the same
question, Bradley added, “If we can get our White people to take it out of their head, that the
Black skin doesn't have anything new to offer.” However, a response from Malone highlighted
the critical influence, "Because of how they treat Blacks in their country, they [foreign MNCs]
ask ridiculous questions about your intelligence simply because they are from the U.K. or
America.” From this participant’s response, it was not a specific action toward Indigenous SMEs
that elicited the perspective, but rather “how they [foreign MNCs] treat Blacks in their country.”
The perspectives expressed align with the macrosystem’s influence in Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological systems theory which describes indirect environmental influences, especially those
that seemingly had no bearing on an SME. However, participants related to such events and
interpreted the foreign MNC’s tendencies and actions through that lens.
Curiously, three executive leaders specifically cited Nigeria’s Niger Delta as a typical
case of conflicts resulting from several factors, including ineffective knowledge exchange. While
the alleged events in Nigeria did not directly affect Indigenous SMEs in Ghana, the knowledge

91
of the events indirectly impacted their interactions regarding knowledge exchange. Malone
added, “If we challenge them [foreign MNCs] to discuss projects as they do everywhere else,
they say we are becoming another Nigeria.” Nigeria, in this context, represented partners that
were considered uncontrollable, undisciplined, and reckless because they questioned every
detail. The perception suggests that foreign MNCs prefer to dictate information to Indigenous
partners, not engage in discussions. Daphne added, “Even when they [foreign MNCs] are
learning from us, they make it sound like they are doing us a favor.”
Fernando recounted specific influences where a foreign MNC proposed a training
program because it believed it would be best for the Ghanaian engineers to “learn the basics.”
According to the participant, the proposal created a wedge between the partners because the
foreign MNC assumed the Ghanaian with 10 years of experience was comparable to an
American with two years of experience. The executive leaders associated that viewpoint with
prejudiced attitudes that reinforced the racial superiority of White people. Thus, he concluded,
“Race shouldn’t matter, but it is the main thing.” According to Ismelda, “The environment itself
is racist, and it didn’t start today.” Upon further probing, the participant’s reference to
“environment” was related to systemic racism woven into the proverbial fabric of international
business. The “environment,” as the participant termed it, demands Indigenous SMEs to adopt
Western business norms, and adjust to Western-centered, insidiously oppressive policies.
Delatolla et al. (2014) challenge systemic racism’s “dazzling normalization of whiteness as the
blueprint for knowledge production” (p.139). Further, they portray the pervasiveness of systemic
racism across geographical borders.
Ultimately, although the participants appeared aware of historical influences like
colonialism on interactions with foreign entities, there also seemed to be an ingrained vigilance

92
to ensure that injustices do not repeat, albeit in a different form. For an Indigenous SME, the
antidote to colonial exploitation, the prejudice that began “centuries ago” and the “way they treat
Black people in their countries” was, as Alvin further elaborated, “We [Indigenous SMEs] go in
there with our eyes wide open and challenge the information we are receiving because we are
equal partners, not slaves.”
Cultural Anchors and Human Capital
Cross-border partnerships confront the challenge of diversity and entrenched
sociocultural differences. From the interviews, cultural barriers and perceptions of ethnocentrism
hindered business growth and the knowledge-sharing process. However, according to the
participants, the awareness of, and respect for, differences fostered interorganizational business
relationships. Researchers posit cultural humility and competence as critical keys to fostering
knowledge sharing (Abe, 2020; Rosen et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2017). According to Malone,
“If you don’t respect my culture, it is impossible even to hear what you are trying to share.”
Cultural humility and cultural competence appeared to help foreign MNCs adapt to host
nations and leverage local partners’ contextual knowledge. From the SME’s point of view,
MNC’s decision to enter a foreign market requires respect for Indigenous values and customs.
For example, Hamilton suggested that “It is impossible for Western ccompanies to show up in
Africa and leave behind their paternalism and self-righteousness.” Malone echoed the
sentimenent with his perspective, “If you deal with European and American companies, you
know you will hear their lecture on human rights and everythinig else, and sometimes that is not
the kind of useful information we need for the job." The participants’ responses suggested an
overt dislike for foreign MNCs inadvertently imposing foreign norms in the local context. Such
understanding requires rethinking organizational practices to accommodate local cultural

93
sensitivities. Bradley said, “Here [in Ghana] we choose to see the world differently, and we are
not trying to become America. ”
Some executive leaders indicated they felt pressured to conform to foreign cultural
standards to get foreign MNCs’ commitment. Navarro shared a similar perspective on cultural
identity in navigating relationships with foreign MNCs that did not respect the local culture and
took the “My way or no way” approach. Specific to technical knowledge, participants explained
that the Indigenous SMEs acquiesce to the foreign partner’s approach, but only to the extent that
they [the Indigenous SMEs] can take advantage of the resources and technology that the foreign
company offers. Thus, knowledge exchange was a means to an end. The goal of such
collaboration was not knowledge exchange, but both parties exploiting the interaction for shortterm gains.
Other participants pointed to a presumed hypocrisy exhibited by foreign MNCs, thus
interpreting foreign MNCs' gestures as feigning an understanding of the local context. Edison,
for example, used phrases such as “same old story” and “business as usual” to describe foreign
MNCs’ intent. The perception suggests that Indigenous SMEs hold preconceived barriers to
foreign partners, which also creates barriers to meaningful knowledge exchange. Daphne
elaborated upon the perception of duplicity, “Foreign companies talk a lot about diversity and
inclusion in their business plans until they get to Ghana. Once they get the deal they want, we
become second-class citizens the same way they have always treated us.” Navarro also added, “It
is the same script with different actors, except that this time we [Indigenous SMEs] are not stuck
in the dark.”
The perspectives expressed by many of the executive leaders illustrate the indirect effect
of a microsystem in the ecological systems theory, which encompasses sociocultural constructs,

94
values, and beliefs (Crawford, 2020). The interview findings revealed Indigenous SMEs’ shared
identity in a culture they considered welcoming and unconfrontational. The cultural norm and
associated values elicit tolerance for cultural differences, especially for a foreigner [MNC]
perceived to be offering something of value to the country. Hamilton shared, “Sometimes it is
only a marriage of convenience because our beliefs often clash with theirs.” The phrase
“marriage of convenience” highlights a temporary relationship to achieving a business goal, as
such, both the foreign MNC and the Indigenous SME fail to invest the necessary effort for
effective knowledge exchange.
According to Hamilton, cultural differences, including ethnic and tribal groupings, exist
beyond the primary identity of being Ghanaian. This perspective was consistent with the
observation that all participants used the word “we” to express a collective identity, despite their
ethnic and tribal differences in the host nation. Bradley pointed out, “Regardless of what product
or service we offer here [in Ghana], all of us [Indigenous SMEs] face the same kinds of problems
and business frustrations when we are dealing with foreign partners.” Thus, Indigenous SMEs
assumed a single identity in their interaction with foreign MNCs yet explain different subcultures
in conducting business in parts of the country.
However, as a departure from the predominant viewpoint, Jasper stressed that culture was
not the primary lens through which his organization evaluated any potential joint venture
partnership. Further, the participant believed “culture should have nothing to do with knowledge
and learning if what we are learning is Black and White.” The reference to “Black and White”
presupposes that all knowledge sharing occurs explicitly and that the process can demonstrate
evidence of the occurrence. This opinion contrasts the argument that tacit and explicit knowledge

95
are necessary prerequisites for improved organizational performance and competitive advantage
(Allameh et al., 2014; Ang et al., 2022 Noruzy et al., 2013).
Ultimately, cultural competency and humility influence the quality of communication
between foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs in cross-cultural settings. Navarro said, “Japanese
and Chinese companies work well here [in Ghana] because they leave our culture alone. Doing
business with Americans comes with all sorts of conditions.” The participant further explained
the dynamic nature of culture, yet “things don’t change overnight.” This viewpoint suggests that
although Indigenous SMEs do not perceive their cultures as static, the preference is for foreign
organizations to accept their norms and social structures and adapt to them. Researchers
emphasize social interactions as a critical antecedent to organizations exchanging information on
expertise (Fait et al., 2019; Ouakouak et al., 2021). Thus, knowledge sharing is likely to occur in
environments where the partners leverage diversity in expertise, as well as differences in cultural
experiences.
Regulatory Framework and Intervention
Organizations collaborate to meet compliance standards established by administrative
agencies. Ghana’s Petroleum Commission has implemented local content guidelines which
include knowledge transfer requirements. Thus, the legislation encourages foreign MNCs and
Indigenous SMEs to exchange tacit and explicit knowledge. Throughout the interviews, the
participants in the study recognized the legislator’s role in achieving local content objectives,
however, specific to knowledge sharing, the perceived role of the government agency varied
between facilitator, enforcer, and advocate. Table 6 presents Indigenous SMEs’ perceived
influence of a regulator in the knowledge-sharing process.

96
Table 6
Perceived Role of the Petroleum Commission
Perceived Role Participant Responses
Facilitator “So, these legal instruments are the best tools to push for technology
transfer.”
Facilitator
“They have to ensure all the players in the upstream sectors submit their
procurement plan so that they can approve a particular job can be done
by companies in Ghana.”
Facilitator “It is their [Petroleum Commission] job to help build capacity, and the
knowledge we gain is a major part.”
Enforcer “Government policies pretty much dictate what foreigners contribute.”
Enforcer
“Government is the make or break. They can make all the laws but if they
are not diligent to enforce them, we [Indigenous SMEs] will remain
stuck where we are.”
Advocate “The government is the key otherwise it will always be a struggle for a
local company to force compliance on foreigners.”
Advocate “Petroleum Commission sets the stage and only they can level the
playing field.”
Advocate
“They [Petroleum Commission] can support us [Indigenous SMEs] by
demanding information [from MNCs] that we cannot demand on our
own.”
First, regulatory authority indirectly influences the knowledge-sharing process by serving
as a facilitator for the transfer of technical expertise. According to the executive leaders
interviewed, the facilitation included establishing and documenting policies, consistently
applying policies to all organizations, and monitoring the practical implications to remove
unintended barriers. Hamilton noted that “legal instruments are the best tools to push for
technology transfer.” For example, Daphne reasoned that the Petroleum Commission’s
introduction of Channel Partnerships and Strategic Alliances was in response to the practicality
of the original LI 2204 regulations. Strategic Alliances pertain to undertaking specific short-term
projects. Channel Partnership describes a specific arrangement between Indigenous SMEs and

97
original equipment manufacturers, a system integrator, or value-added resellers of products,
services, or technologies (Petroleum Commission, 2023). Thus, owing to the limitations of the
original LI 2204, the amendments encouraged frequent and purposeful project-related
interactions between MNCs and SMEs. The responses imply knowledge sharing was more likely
to occur when the legislative instruments created the appropriate partnership expectations,
without overburdening one partner. Malone echoed the sentiment by stating, “All they
[Petroleum Commission] have to do is to build the infrastructure, we [MNCs and SMEs] can
work out the rest.”
However, Carson shared that the role of facilitator was influential only if the Petroleum
Commission was an honest broker and explicitly outlined a reporting mechanism for knowledge
transferred between foreign MNCs and their Indigenous counterparts, “The Petroleum
Commission cannot be in the pockets of big guys [foreign MNCs] and turn a blind eye to some
of these things instead of being the independent referee who should ask the tough questions.”
According to the executive leaders interviewed, monitoring technical knowledge transfer was
fraught with loopholes. Both foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs exploited the gaps in the
enacted policies. As such, the regulator’s role as the enforcer was the ideal mechanism to ensure
effective knowledge sharing practices. Edison said, “A bad law is better than no law,” in
response to the effectiveness of the current legislative framework.
Edison’s perspective expressed the idea that any progressive initiative was a step in the
right direction despite the provisions of the LI 2204 being unattainable, and the timelines to
achieve Indigenous autonomy considered aggressive and impractical. Fernando also observed,
“Requiring them [foreign MNCs] to demonstrate knowledge transfer as a requirement to renew
work permits of their expatriate workers is a start, but no one is checking to verify if the

98
information on the paper is correct.” The perspective was comparable with the view that unless
the administrative agency enforced knowledge sharing, as Navarro agreed, the foreign MNC
“will not invest anything more than they are required to.” Thus, for the participants who viewed
the regulator’s role as an enforcer, Fernando said, “We [Indigenous SMEs] all see the
government as the make or break. They can make laws, but we will remain stuck if they are
unwilling to enforce them.”
Other participants agreed with the enforcing power of the Petroleum Commission as
indirectly influencing knowledge sharing. Malone stated, “Only enforcing compliance with LI
2204 will work.” Yet, Fernando claimed, “forcing someone to share what they know is not the
best strategy.” Fernando’s reasoning suggests that enforcing knowledge transfer requirements
can disincentivize partners to share what he describes as the “bare minimum, just to comply.”
Similarly, Malone admitted that compliance could only regulate information that “is required to
meet legal requirements, not what we need to know to understand and operate the equipment.”
From this perspective, information “required to meet legal requirements” refers to procedural
knowledge, while information “to understand and operate the equipment” refers to conceptual
knowledge. Conceptual knowledge is “knowing why,” it encompasses understanding the
interrelationships between discrete facts (Huaulme et al., 2022, p. 74). Similarly, according to
Richland et al. (2012), knowledge sharing is unsuccessful without conceptual understanding.
All the participants’ responses revealed the central role of the Petroleum Commission in
establishing governing frameworks that indirectly regulate knowledge sharing. From the
participant’s perspectives, legislation and enforcement can compel foreign MNCs to share
required procedural knowledge. However, the administrative framework cannot guarantee tacit
or conceptual knowledge exchange.

99
Organizational Mechanisms: The Offshore Factor
Technical knowledge sharing requires hands-on instruction and application to transfer
acquired information into job performance. However, the executive leaders indicated that the
peculiar structure of the industry influences organizational priorities and subsequent knowledgesharing behavior. Offshore operations involve extracting crude oil and natural gas fields located
beneath the earth's oceans to the earth’s surface. Face-to-face knowledge exchange occurred on
drill ships, semi-submersibles, rigs, and barges floating on the ocean's surface. This
environmental context adds another dimension to a multifaceted knowledge-sharing process.
According to Malone, “Remember working on a floating ship in unpredictable weather
conditions in the middle of the ocean is not like a normal work environment.” As such,
knowledge exchanges took place during interactions between foreign MNCs, and Indigenous
SMEs occur outside the environment where the performance typically occurs. Thus, Ismelda
recognized, “In a perfect world, that is where you want to train someone.”
Daphne provided her view on the unique environmental challenge:
The drilling process for oil offshore is 100 times more challenging than drilling on land.
Even getting people on helicopters to take them to the FPSO is a hassle. Plus, you have to
consider every liability and safety requirement that comes to working in adverse
conditions. So, it is not like they [foreign MNC] don’t want to share what they know,
sometimes they just don’t have the bandwidth.
Knowledge sharing in offshore oil and gas operations requires significant investment in human
capital. According to Malone, a significant barrier to training was the opportunity to apply the
knowledge in the “real world,” which includes “BOSIET certificates, specialized safety training,
and helicopter charges to the FPSO.” Offshore operations demand stricter protocols and

100
advanced training before any project execution. From the participant’s perspective, such an
operating environment was unlike training in business offices or in other facilities on land where
there are relatively fewer space constraints or significant financial requirements to facilitate the
knowledge exchange. Thus, Jasper said, “Of course, they [foreign MNCs] cannot share
information without a job that makes them money. You can’t just say let’s go and train
offshore.” The perspective underscores the capital-intensive nature of offshore oil and gas
operations where foreign and Indigenous MNCs restrict project costs to essential tasks. Jasper
added, “They are not paying you to stand around. They don’t even have the space on an FPSO
for you to stand there to say you are learning.” Regarding knowledge sharing in offshore
environments, the executive leaders shared similar viewpoints and understanding of the unique
contextual challenges. Ismelda added, “We [Indigenous SMEs] cannot absorb the financial risk
that comes with this work, So the very nature of the offshore drilling business makes us beggars,
so we can’t go in demanding information.”
Executive leaders also shared that the lack of urgency in both the acquisition and on-job
application of technical knowledge affected knowledge-sharing behavior. As Navarro
highlighted, “It is expensive to pour money into learning and training, not knowing if you will
even get a project.” As such, the organizational culture adopts ad hoc information exchange and
does not encourage such knowledge sharing in an organized manner. The perspective suggests
that in cases where either the foreign MNC or Indigenous SME do not anticipate guaranteed
profit-generating contracts, the organizations may not find value in investing in training. Most
participants (10 of 14) claimed their organizations encouraged knowledge sharing and have
developed a learning culture. However, from the responses, it was evident that much of the
knowledge sharing was conditional, dependent on the availability of new projects. Bradley

101
admitted, “Look at it this way, even the process of getting a contract costs money. Then you are
asking me to invest more money to train people when I don’t know where the project is coming
from.” This participant’s vantage point implies that in the absence of immediate jobs to apply
any acquired knowledge, organizations disregarded the necessary investment in required training
to gain both tacit and explicit knowledge. Bradley also acknowledged the attitude of “going on
projects with what we know and hope it all comes together.” From the participants' responses, it
appeared both foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs adopted knee-jerk reactions to knowledge
exchange, thereby attempting to share information when the project requirement demands such
knowledge.
Other participants shared similar perspectives, maintaining that “when foreigners arrive,
they are in a hurry to execute projects and leave” (Daphne) and “no one has the time to hold a
company’s hands to teach them the rope when the time is ticking” (Ismelda). Daphne further
explained that he had been part of the mutual decision to “go with the flow and learn on the fly.”
The responses confirm the reactionary nature of knowledge sharing between foreign MNCs and
Indigenous SMEs. However, while Daphne acknowledges the ineffectiveness of that knowledgesharing process, he puts his decision in perspective, “this is how it works in this industry.”
For many Indigenous SMEs, joint venture partnerships with foreign SMEs serve as the
critical entry point to gain access to the both the domestic and international oil and gas market.
As such, most do not know the nature of conceptual information required for specific projects, in
addition to standard procedures and project documentation. The peculiar challenges in the
offshore environment and the capital-intensive nature of the oil and gas enterprise highlights the
need for foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs to outline clear business strategies to facilitate
knowledge sharing.

102
Discussion for Research Question 2
Entrenched attitudes of superiority and presumed dominance of foreign MNCs affect the
interaction with Indigenous SMEs in host nations. However, the Indigenous SMEs’ perspective
recognized the MNCs' role as a driver of local economic activity, thus compelling them to
overlook cultural insensitivities. Throughout the interview, none of the participants justified
foreign MNCs’ lack of cultural awareness or cultural incompetence. A participant, however,
sought to establish differences in the cultural constructs between Asian organizations and
European or American organizations. The perspective suggested that the predominant cultural
constructs in foreign MNC countries were the prism through which those organizations interact
in host nations.
Another emerging theme was the modulating role of government agencies. Government
regulations, implemented through the Petroleum Commission, impact knowledge sharing
significantly. While all 14 executive leaders acknowledged the agency's central role, perspectives
differed in the approach they believed was most effective. The Petroleum Commission serving as
a facilitator, an enforcer, or an advocate, creates an avenue to encourage knowledge-sharing
behavior. However, the consensus was that the government regulatory agency ought to serve as a
referee, a neutral and honest broker, to facilitate the business processes. Similarly, the inherent
challenge of operating in offshore environments constrains knowledge-sharing behaviors. The
executive leaders interviewed indicated that effective exchange of technical information requires
a hands-on application for the recipient to understand the conceptual knowledge associated with
a particular process. Indigenous SMEs acknowledged the peculiar challenge of remote offshore
operations and did not assign blame to either the joint venture partner or the regulatory agency.

103
The three emergent themes illustrated environmental factors that affect MNCs and SMEs
in knowledge sharing. Thus, while these events occurred outside the organization’s immediate
environment, they affected the interactions and subsequent knowledge sharing between foreign
MNCs and Indigenous SMEs in cross-cultural settings. Unlike the proximal socialization
contexts, the environmental factors surrounded the Indigenous SME organizations. The themes
indicated events and attitudes that operated behind the scenes of an organization’s immediate
environment, including workplace and social contexts, belief systems, government legislation,
and market characteristics, indirectly influenced the interactions that facilitated knowledgesharing behavior. While all three influencing factors appeared to impact knowledge sharing, the
ripple effects of race, history, and culture appeared to be the subtle yet intractable challenge in
cross-cultural interactions.
Summary
This study sought to understand the factors that affect knowledge sharing between MNCs
and SMEs in cross-cultural settings. This research used semi-structured interviews to understand
the individual and environmental factors specific to Ghana’s energy sector. Findings in this study
emerged from evaluating subjective interpretations through Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems
theory. Research question one focused on individual factors that facilitated or hindered
knowledge sharing. The second research question focused on the environmental factors that
influenced knowledge sharing. The findings stemming from this qualitative study centered on
identifying antecedents and barriers that support or hinder cross-cultural knowledge sharing
between independent entities engaged in joint venture partnerships.
The chapter includes an analysis of data collected from the 14 interviews, followed by a
categorization into the themes. The interviews showed that bidirectional trust and reciprocity,

104
perception of competence, and divergent value propositions are proximal influences on an
organization’s propensity to exchange knowledge with Indigenous partners. Further, the effects
of race and culture, regulatory frameworks, and organizational mechanisms illustrate indirect
influences on knowledge sharing. The discussion presented in Chapter Five includes the findings'
theoretical and practical implications, along with recommendations and potential implications for
future research.

105
Chapter Five: Discussion
The final chapter of this dissertation includes a discussion of the study findings based on
the data analysis, implications for practice, and recommendations. The qualitative study aimed to
understand the factors that affect knowledge sharing between MNCs and SMEs in cross-cultural
settings, specifically in Ghana’s energy sector. Interviews of fourteen executive leaders
purposive sampled occurred either in person in Ghana or via Zoom videoconference. The
information gathered from the study participants reflected a diversity in professional experiences,
and interactions with foreign MNCs, and provided an opportunity to gain insight from the
perspective of Indigenous SMEs. The recommendations following the study center around
developing an interorganizational framework to facilitate efficient and mutually beneficial
knowledge sharing. Thus, the understanding from this study is an instructive blueprint to support
an organization’s competitive advantage, government job creation initiatives, and Indigenous
workforce engagement. The chapter closes with recommendations for future inquiry.
Findings
The findings of this study addressed the two targeted research questions: the individual
and environmental factors that affect knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector. This section
discusses the themes that emerged from the data analysis and their relationships with the existing
literature reviewed in Chapter Two. The research led to six findings that underlie the
multifaceted problem of knowledge sharing in the context of Ghana’s energy sector. In general,
the findings were consistent with other researchers’ perspectives on factors that influence crosscultural collaboration, however, some prominent exceptions emerged. Cumulatively, these
factors created barriers that hindered effective knowledge sharing between Indigenous SMEs and
foreign MNCs. The divergence in perspectives, however, was unsurprising, considering the

106
specificity of the research parameters: (a) Ghana’s energy sector, (b) Indigenous SMEs with
experience in the provision of services and sale of products, and (c) Indigenous SMEs that
interface with foreign MNCs. A review of the findings ensues, followed by recommendations for
practice.
Finding One: Bidirectional Trust and Reciprocity (RQ1)
Mutual and reciprocal trust is an essential facilitator of knowledge sharing. In
interorganizational contexts, trust emerges as either an innate human trait or a result of
contractual obligations which force compliance by both parties. Knowledge exchange regulated
by mutual trust avoids the unidirectional tendencies of Indigenous SMEs or foreign MNCs that
reinforce the unquestioned knowledge-giver and knowledge-receiver construct. Although the
existing literature and discussions of the absorptive capacity of Indigenous SMEs (Anand et al.,
2020; Chang et al., 2012; Park et al., 2022; Zhoa et al., 2020) are relevant and instructive, they
inadvertently strengthen the viewpoint that effectiveness of information exchange is solely
dependent on recipient ability to understand both tacit and explicit information. As such, several
researchers overlook the importance of both parties being open to learning from each other. The
findings of the study were consistent with the assertion that trust reciprocity is central (Zhong et
al., 2017), and mutual trust is a “compulsory starting point” for interorganizational strategic
collaboration (Thanetsunthorn & Wuthisatian, 2019, p. 219).
In addition, trust divergence emerged as a subtheme with little discussion in the existing
literature. From an interorganizational context of knowledge sharing, the question remains with
whom the trust is brokered, the organization or the individual within it? Indeed, organizations are
not people, rather, people make up organizations. This reality challenges conceptualizing trust in
organizations as a collective orientation demonstrated uniformly. Brattström et al. (2018) support

107
the reasoning that individual members develop and possess different trust perceptions that may
be either aligned or incongruent with the presumed organization’s collectively held perceptions.
Thus, the study revealed that individuals may not instinctively repress their microsystems' unique
influences to adopt an organization's espoused values. At both the organizational and individual
levels, reciprocal and mutual trust are prerequisites for knowledge creation and sharing in
developing competitive advantages (Bengoa & Kaufmann, 2016; Thanetsunthorn & Wuthisatian,
2019).
Finding Two: Perception of Competence (RQ1)
Preconceived stereotypical composites of a group’s capability create a barrier to
knowledge-sharing behavior. The findings revealed Indigenous SMEs’ awareness of foreign
counterparts prejudging their competence based on entrenched narratives. However, rather than
being indignant and confrontational, participants seemed to attribute such narrow-minded
perspectives to ignorance and negative portrayals in Western media. There was a sense of
seeking to prove the stereotype wrong by demonstrating their intelligence and technical
competence. Existing literature supports the counterproductive and detrimental nature of cultural
stereotypes and biases, and their influences in cross-cultural business relationships (Abe, 2020;
Curado & Vieira, 2019; Dutta & Elers, 2020; Ferner et al., 2011). The literature falls short of
revealing Indigenous perspectives and reactions despite the disparaging stereotypes. For
example, other literature presumes the results of such conflicting perspectives will be tension and
conflict (Abugre & Debrah, 2019; Andreotti, 2016).
It is noteworthy that participants recognize that Western media continues to paint Africa
and Africans as backward and uncivilized savages. As a result of their social conditioning, the
executive leaders in the study surmised that individual members of foreign organizations have

108
underestimate the competence of Indigenous partners. Researchers point out Anglo-Saxons'
perception of themselves as God’s ideal creation with a God-ordained superiority that justified
oppressive colonial systems (Shadle, 2015; Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013) and
reinforced master-servant dynamic (Kwarteng, 2014). Thus, this finding was particularly striking
because of the intractable nature of racism and prejudice, and the presumption of competence.
This viewpoint explained another observation: foreign MNCs equated exposure to Western
society and Western culture with industry competency and general knowledge of global business
etiquette. The Indigenous SMEs recognize this flaw in such reasoning and the false sense of
assurance that seems to give the foreign partners. However, Indigenous SMEs adopt a
collaborative instead of a retaliatory approach. The findings point to Indigenous SMEs' focus on
an end state, which is the acquisition of technical know-how in the energy sector.
Lastly, an executive leader’s introspection was another remarkable finding, "Biases and
stereotypes go both ways.” There exists a tendency for Indigenous SMEs to expect foreign
partners to possess extensive knowledge in technical knowledge and technology, which in turn
gives credence to foreign MNCs' superior competency. This perspective was an outlier because
all participants presented a one-sided view of stereotypes and biases centered on foreign MNCs.
Upon probing further, the participant attributed the Indigenous SMEs' biases to social
conditioning, cultural norms, and the native educational system. From the study, Indigenous
partners keep contextual information from the foreign partners to demonstrate their value in the
partnership, and some of the participants admit to erecting mental blocks and allowing the
foreigners to discover the truth on their own. These individual factors inhibit knowledge sharing.
The result, as the executive leaders revealed, is foreign counterparts wasting time and resources
to “reinvent the wheel” because of the perceived incompetence of local partners.

109
Finding Three: Divergent Value Propositions (RQ1)
Successful organizational collaborations thrive on shared goals, shared opportunities, and
shared risks. Researchers have reiterated that foreign MNCs are complex organizations with
multifaceted interests often compelled to maneuver among institutional contradictions
(Dörrenbächer & Geppert, 2011; Ferner et al., 2011). Indigenous SMEs are equally complex,
owing to their integral role as job creators and innovators, knowledge brokers, and change
agents. (Augustine & Asiedu, 2017; Ntiamoah et al., 2016; Peprah et al., 2016). The outcome is
unsurprising, for competing and divergent interests to emerge.
While competitive advantages and increased market shares are an organization’s primary
goals, it is equally essential to recognize the competing interests and unstated agendas, especially
in host nations. A key finding of this study was Indigenous SMEs' actions and interests that
undercut the argument that local enterprises always consider long-term investments and
development in local communities. Terminologies including “fronting,” “body shop,” “passthrough,” and “rent collectors” describe local illegal practices where Indigenous SMEs form
partnerships for the sole purpose of collecting fees from foreign partners. It appeared that for
some joint venture partnerships, knowledge sharing and subsequent knowledge transfer is a
pretext for illegal profit-seeking interests. The finding demonstrated divergence in organizational
goals that directly hampers a mutual and intentional effort to exchange tacit and explicit
knowledge.
Participant responses also revealed that the perceived economic risk of partners divulging
proprietary information affects the likelihood of knowledge sharing to occur between
independent organizations willingly. This viewpoint is consistent with existing literature that
acknowledges, as a strategic paradox, the challenge of simultaneously sharing and protecting

110
vital business information (Loebbecke et al., 2016; van Fenema & Loebbecke, 2014). From the
study, the reluctance to exchange information is due to differences in the perceived continuance
of joint venture partnerships. Relatedly, a noteworthy finding was the view that foreign MNCs
consider oil and gas resources as a commodity to exploit for commercial purposes with
Indigenous resource owners. However, some Indigenous SMEs consider their role as custodians
of a non-renewable finite natural resource whose benefit requires safeguarding for future
generations. These divergent viewpoints present different individual expectations and conflicting
stances on commercialization that in turn restrain the exchange of pertinent knowledge.
Finding Four: Ripple Effects of Race, History, and Culture (RQ2)
The vestiges of oppression and racism include deep-seated prejudice and inequalities that
exist in contemporary business interactions. Consistent with the study’s findings, Delatolla et al.
(2014) critique systemic racism by pointing out the “dazzling normalization of whiteness as the
blueprint for knowledge production” (p.139). Yet, one finding that emerged was that in addition
to the effects of imperialist structures, the influence of racism occurring in a broader global
context impacts collaboration between MNCs and SMEs in Ghana. These indirect influences
evoke the perception of Westerners' and foreign enterprises' social and institutional advantages
(Abe, 2020; Guess, 2006). An executive leader’s remark, “It is a White man’s world, it has
always been,” sums up the perceived advantage of foreign MNCs in the global marketplace. A
predisposition of perceived superiority hampers knowledge sharing.
An intriguing dimension of racism revealed by the executive leaders in the study was the
occurrence of prejudicial behavior in host nations. Thus, Indigenous SMEs believe that because
of entrenched racist attitudes, foreign MNC personnel’s predisposition is to treat their Black
Indigenous counterparts as inferior. As such, in the context of knowledge sharing of essential

111
technical information to execute oil and gas projects, Indigenous SMEs refer to collaborations as
“marriages of convenience.” It is worth emphasizing, however, that the perception held by the
Indigenous SMEs may not be accurate, as several factors could lead to an individual’s behavior,
not only racism. However, the opinions were rooted in participants’ awareness of how Western
and foreign MNCs have related to Indigenous partners in other oil-producing nations in Africa.
Another finding worth highlighting is foreign MNCs' perceived hypocrisy in
understanding and adapting to cultural settings. Existing literature stressed the importance of
cultural competence and cultural humility as antecedents to effective knowledge-sharing in
cross-cultural contexts (Azzopardi & McNeill, 2016; Calza et al., 2013; Danso, 2016; FisherBorne et al., 2015). However, the study revealed the risk of foreign MNCs’ actions
misinterpreted as phony, pretentious, and feigning an understanding of the local context. Despite
the lack of evidence to substantiate Indigenous assertion of foreign MNCs’ actions, it is
reasonable for Indigenous SMEs to question a foreigner's treatment of one group of Black people
when they demonstrate a different set of treatment to another group of Black people. Thus,
several participants of the study surmised that any suggestion of racial equality and cultural
respect in host nations was merely a façade and a tool to exploit the market. While this study had
no pragmatic way to ascertain the intention of foreign MNCs, it is important for such enterprises
to recognize this reality and seek proactive ways to address this Indigenous perception in every
knowledge-sharing practice.
Finding Five: Regulatory Framework and Intervention (RQ2)
The findings from the study reveal the government agency’s direct role in establishing
regulatory guidelines for the transfer of technical knowledge. Thus, both Indigenous SMEs and
foreign MNCs expect the Petroleum Commission, as a neutral facilitator, to create the legal

112
framework including the original LI 2204, and the subsequent Channel Partnerships and
Strategic Alliances geared towards specific short-term projects. However, from the study, it is
critical for the regulatory agency to be neutral and effective. Neutrality ensures that the agency
seeks the welfare of both the foreign MNC and Indigenous SME by developing a framework that
facilitates business operations in a fair manner. As revealed through participant responses,
effectiveness includes having individuals with the appropriate competency and understanding of
the industry to set the policy agenda. Without neutrality and effectiveness, the Petroleum
Commission creates an environment that seemingly punishes entrepreneurial initiatives and
indirectly disincentivizes knowledge-sharing behavior in joint venture partnerships.
As enforcers, however, the expectation exists for the regulatory agency to monitor the
implementation of the LI 2204, Channel Partnerships, and Strategic Alliances to ensure it meets
its explicit goal of Indigenous participation and ownership in Ghana’s energy sector. Central to
this enforcer's role is independence and integrity. As revealed through the study, independence
allows regulatory agencies to demand compliance from foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs,
while integrity describes impartiality and consistency in enforcement. However, an important
observation was that while the regulatory agency successfully enacts policy and demands
compliance, Indigenous SMEs do not express confidence that the regulatory agency effectively
monitors the knowledge-sharing requirements and records.
Unlike the Petroleum Commission’s role as a facilitator and enforcer that requires
neutrality, the findings outlined a third role as an advocate where the sole focus is to represent
the interests of Indigenous SMEs. This finding supports the contention that implementing local
content policies is a platform for Indigenous capacity building and the volume of goods and
services rendered in the energy sector value chain (Tordo et al., 2013; Vaaland et al., 2011). The

113
expectation in a one-sided advocacy role will be for the regulatory agency to prioritize advancing
policies that offer competitive advantages to local enterprises. Given the regulatory agency’s role
as a neutral facilitator and enforcer, a paradox that none of the participants pointed out was the
inherent conflict in these three roles. Is it possible for an agency to be an advocate and
successfully be a facilitator and enforcer?
Finding Six: Organizational Mechanisms (RQ2)
Unique environments pose uncommon challenges to interorganizational knowledge
exchange. Another finding from the study was the unusual role of offshore environments as the
physical spaces where knowledge sharing occurred. Interactions and learning in such remote
environments including on the decks of drill ships, semi-submersibles, rigs, barges, and FPSOs
add to the complexity of the knowledge exchange. Additionally, prerequisites to technical
knowledge-sharing activity include certifications that validate technical skillsets, upstream
industry protocols, and specialized safety training. As such, knowledge exchange in the energy
sector is unlike business environments with limited constraints. Thus, an executive leader in the
study noted that despite the intention of foreign MNCs or Indigenous SMEs, “You can’t just say
Let’s go and train offshore.” However, as an emerging economy with a nascent energy sector,
the lack of investment in technology and technical know-how presents a significant
environmental challenge to knowledge sharing (Asumadu-Sarkodie & Owusu, 2016; Sackey et
al., 2021).
Related to the peculiarity of the environmental context is the capital-intensive nature of
offshore oil and gas operations. Thus, knowledge acquisition behavior gears toward the
execution of specific projects, rather than in preparation for a potential project at a future date.
As such, following contract awards, organizations face short time periods to mobilize resources

114
and requisite expertise to execute projects. This finding explained what appeared to be a doubleedged sword. On one hand, there is a lack of urgency on the part of Indigenous SMEs to acquire
technical knowledge from foreign partners, and MNCs’ willingness to invest in the technical
knowledge exchange continually. On the other hand, only organizations with the requisite
expertise can effectively partner with foreign MNCs. This finding further explained what appears
to be ad hoc information exchange and knee-jerk reactions to technical knowledge sharing.
Implications for Practice
The findings from this study have theoretical and practical implications. The qualitative
descriptive study findings could help executive leaders in both Indigenous SMEs and foreign
MNCs to improve organizational effectiveness and collaboration and for government agencies to
develop pragmatic policies toward economic growth. As a result of an increasingly
interdependent knowledge-driven global economy, understanding ecological, social, and cultural
differences ensures efficient knowledge-sharing practices. Thus, from an interorganizational
perspective, the study offers insights into understanding the antecedents that drive knowledge
sharing between organizations in cross-cultural contexts.
Additionally, this research study has urgent implications across the African continent and
transcends industry and country. Africa is not a monolith (Johnson, 2016). As such, exploring
one dimension of knowledge-sharing in one African country signals critical interrelationships
that exist in broader contexts. Joint venture partnerships extend beyond immediate business
opportunities and overlap with other partnerships emerging from complex interactions (Park et
al., 2022; Shah et al., 2020). For Indigenous SMEs and foreign MNCs seeking to operate in
Africa, the inconsistencies in competitive advantage give credence to the need to understand the
factors that affect interorganizational knowledge sharing. The research findings challenge

115
monolithic perceptions and prescriptions for cross-border commerce in emerging markets in
Africa, not only Ghana. Efficient knowledge sharing in cross-cultural settings starts with fully
recognizing inherent and overlapping complexities, particularly on an African continent with
numerous emerging markets at different stages of SME-MNC partnerships. The following
sections present the implications of the findings.
Theoretical Implications
The theoretical foundation of the current study is Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems
theory. The objective was to employ a theoretical framework that overlays complex
organizational factors with an equally complex interaction between an individual’s development
and the unique influences of environmental characteristics. The findings support the use of the
ecological systems theory, as the unique perspectives simultaneously highlighted the
complexities in the interactions between foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs, and revealed
several underlying constraints that affect knowledge sharing. The findings from this study
indicated that while Indigenous SMEs have shared social and cultural values, a host of unique
factors influenced their expectations and subsequent behavior in the context of knowledge
sharing.
Other theoretical lenses may provide different insights, each presenting unique
perspectives from examining the problem of practice. For example, Clark and Estes’ gap analysis
will provide an avenue to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
related to knowledge-sharing behavior and the subsequent performance gaps (Clark & Estes,
2008). The theoretical framework asserts the underlying relationship between an organization’s
performance objectives and knowledge, stakeholder motivation, and organizational influences.
From another perspective, social cognitive theory, for example, will illustrate concepts including

116
self-efficacy, modeling, agency, and the role cognitive processes play in knowledge-sharing
behavior. The social cognitive theory emphasizes the triadic reciprocity of environment,
behavior, and person (Bandura, 1986). While other theoretical lenses offer valuable insights, the
selection of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory as the organizing framework was driven
by the opportunity to illustrate the overlapping influences on an individual through the nested
microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, and macrosystems.
Practical Implications
The findings from this study have practical implications for Indigenous SMEs, foreign
MNCs, and government regulatory agencies in host nations. Strategic paradox, the interplay
between simultaneous collaboration and competition presents a central challenge in knowledgesharing practices for independent organizations operating complex interdependent knowledgeintensive sectors. Both foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs engaged in a joint venture
partnership must establish mutual interest and align expectations for the two seemingly divergent
ideas of collaboration and competition to coexist.
From the practical point of view, this study suggests that the complex interaction of
individual, organizational, sociocultural, and institutional factors has varying influences on the
propensity for knowledge sharing to occur in any context. However, mutual trust and respect for
each partner’s contributions facilitate efficient knowledge sharing behavior. The research
findings support Usman et al. (2019) and Blazejewski’s (2009) contention that a critical element
to effective knowledge sharing is the recognition of Indigenous SMEs as equal contributors and
knowledge co-creators. In practice, neither foreign MNCs nor Indigenous SMEs are monolithic
entities. Even though, for example, linguistic, social, cultural, and political connections define
Indigenous SMEs, the dissimilar environmental influences calibrate individuals’ communication

117
and interorganizational collaboration. While differences between foreign MNCs and Indigenous
SMEs exist at one level as independent entities, the unique interpersonal undercurrents and
influences add to the complexity of each interaction.
Recommendations
Three key recommendations address the essential findings for future consideration within
Ghana’s energy sector. Inefficiencies in knowledge sharing hinder the collective ability of joint
venture partners to respond to market factors in a knowledge-driven global economy. On the
contrary, organizations that leverage knowledge sharing and subsequent transfer can optimize
organizational learning, innovation, and competitive advantage. This study explicitly focused on
the experiences of Indigenous SMEs. However, the recommendations inform both Indigenous
SMEs and foreign MNCs to more efficiently direct knowledge-sharing strategies and allocate
resources to optimize organizational performance.
Recommendation 1: Prioritize Bidirectional Trust
Partner organizations in cross-cultural and cross-border business relationships possess
subjective interpretations of trust. The result of varying viewpoints is different approaches to
risk, perceptions of value, and the confidence that partner organizations will indeed honor the
contractual obligations for which they have assumed responsibility. As evident from the research
study, perceptions of bidirectional trust are the critical foundations for constructive business
relationships among interorganizational stakeholders (Brattström et al., 2019; Thanetsunthorn
&Wuthisatian, 2018; Udomkit et al., 2019). It is imperative for joint venture partners to discuss
trust openly. Rather than interpreting a partner’s intent from their own unique constructs, identify
the nuanced expectations of cultural norms and sensitive topics. Additionally, joint venture
partners must openly discuss competing priorities, unexpressed expectations, and unstated

118
agendas. It is especially imperative for both organizations to recognize the added complexity
resulting from overlapping individual and environmental influences.
The answer to the question “Who exactly are we shaking hands with,” should not be
ambiguous. Whereas the notion of trust in cross-cultural partnerships is not novel, the key
perspective that emerged from this study was the value of reciprocity toward partner
organizations. Rather than adopting a monolithic perspective of organizations, ecological
systems theory informs a multilayered examination of the direct and indirect influences of
stakeholder's interpretation and application of trust. The pattern of increased globalization carries
along increased importance for efficient knowledge-sharing behavior necessary for sustained
value creation (Ahmad & Karim, 2019; Krumova & Milanezi, 2014; Shah et al., 2021; Udomkit
et al., 2019). Foreign MNCs and Indigenous SMEs that cannot say with absolute certainty that
their partner is fully committed to the mutual goal identifies self-serving loopholes and manage
the dissemination of explicit and tacit knowledge to gain an advantage within the joint venture
partnership.
Recommendation 2: Invest in Preparatory Facilities
Acquisition and exchange of knowledge are beneficial if utilized to provide value to
organizations. Educational and training facilities that mirror offshore environments and upstream
settings will give organizations effective ways to facilitate onshore training that translates to
application in offshore settings. Consistent with observations by Martins (2016), a unique bundle
of assets and project scope determines competitive advantage for any joint venture. This
simulated environment will be a cost-effective way to benchmark and analyze processes, as well
as exchange technical skills without the constraints of industry certificates, and specific contract
requirements. The ability to replicate complex offshore conditions will support knowledge

119
exchange in a nascent industry. The goal of knowledge sharing is to eventually transfer acquired
knowledge into performance, thus, a way to ascertain the quality of tacit and explicit knowledge
gained from joint venture partnership interactions with and inform both organizations and
regulatory agencies in developing strategies. Hands-on knowledge sharing serves as an essential
avenue for the exchange of both tacit and explicit technical knowledge to eliminate misalignment
in work settings (Delipinar & Kocaoglu, 2016; Harzing et al., 2016). Thus, conducting technical
training in environments that are identical to actual project fields increases the likelihood that
acquired competencies will transfer to organizational performance. Efficient knowledge sharing
that results in successful joint venture collaboration ensures both individual and environmental
influences facilitate relationships rather than hinder them. Partners that can invest in meaningful
preparatory and training facilities have an opportunity to recognize the long-term benefits of
strategic alliances (Foley et al., 2021; Harzing et al., 2016; Pegram et al., 2018).
Recommendation 3: Leverage Expertise in Adjacent Industries
Organizations use technical knowledge sharing as a key part of project bid response
packages for upcoming or awarded contracts. Due to the capital-intensive nature of energy
investments, the prevailing rationale suggests that organizations consider training events without
any contract in hand as an overhead cost. The concern for both Indigenous SMEs is the financial
impact of training and continuous improvement without an assurance of economic dividends for
the organization (Delipinar & Kocaoglu, 2016; Martins, 2016). However, when knowledge
acquisition and dissemination relate to existing structures and industries, there is an opportunity
to develop transferable skills across related industries. The strategy to leverage foundational
expertise from adjacent industries is a catalyst for capacity building and efficient knowledge
sharing (Al-Busaidi & Olfman, 2017; Areed et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2021). Capacity building

120
occurs at an individual level and institutional level where a person has absorbed specific
information, learned new skills, and developed new expertise (Kuschminder, 2013). A host of
both direct and indirect influences from adjacent industries allows Indigenous SMEs to adapt
quickly to the technical knowledge exchange with foreign MNC partners. Thus leveraging
existing proficiency expedites a collaborative knowledge exchange process in the energy sector.
For example, successful energy-related technical knowledge in other countries drew its core
expertise from either the construction industry or the fishing industry, as such, the incentive for
knowledge sharing ties to the broader market and existing architecture. It is evident that such
linkages will support multiple value chains. In the same vein, rather than recruiting individuals
without any fundamental training in the sector, the explicit advantage of leveraging skills from
adjacent industries will increase the speed of capacity building and provide additional incentives
to promote knowledge sharing.
Limitations and Delimitations
Although the research study took the necessary measures to ensure participant credibility,
several limitations and delimitations potentially affected the outcome. Limitations and
delimitations result from aspects of the study that are beyond researcher’s control (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). First, the data gathered were self-reported, so they were exclusively the
participants’ opinions and perspectives. Moreover, as the study sought to highlight the individual
and environmental factors that contribute to knowledge sharing, participant bias was inherent in
their accounts. Although the study provided insight into foreign MNC and Indigenous SME
knowledge sharing practices, it cannot control variables such as trust and motivation in the data
obtained. Another limitation was subjective individual experiences, environmental influences,

121
and cultural contexts; thus, a study limited to Ghana’s energy sector may not be immediately
generalizable to other countries and sectors.
A key delimitation of this research study was its focus on SMEs. While the organizations
selected represented the SMEs in Ghana, the selections were based on convenience and access.
The study participants were executive leaders in Ghanaian SMEs in the energy sector,
specifically oil and natural gas production. It excluded companies involved in producing other
energy sources, including biomass, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower. This delineation
was vital to ensure a clearly defined focus for the study. Positionality and epistemology, as well
as a pragmatic philosophical worldview, inherently affected the research design. Finally,
although knowledge sharing occurs across different organizational settings within and between
MNCs and subsidiary organizations, this study’s scope focused on interfaces between
independent organizations.
Recommendation for Future Research
Findings from this qualitative study presented several paths of inquiry to explore with
further research. This phenomenological study used a qualitative descriptive approach to explore
the perspectives of executive leaders in Indigenous SMEs regarding their viewpoint on the
individual and environmental factors that either facilitate or hinder knowledge sharing. The
narrowed focus on Indigenous SMEs sought to elicit in-depth subjective interpretation by
participants. Further, this work will not fully capture the magnitude of the problem, albeit the
study seeks to make a meaningful contribution to existing literature. Three future research areas
emerged from the interviews, each addressing an aspect of the individual and environmental
factors that affect knowledge sharing in cross-cultural settings.

122
First, future researchers may consider interviewing perceived tacit and explicit
knowledge successors to gather their perspectives on technical knowledge handover as outlined
and expected by the Petroleum Commission. As discussed by participants, one of the stated goals
of Ghana’s government’s local content policy is developing local expertise in the petroleum
sector. The implementation of the policy appears to fall short without a framework to ascertain
the knowledge received by successors, and Indigenous enterprises. However, this assessment is
based on a presumption by executive leaders in this study. Thus, qualitative research that
explicates the experiences of knowledge successors will create a realistic framework to achieve
the intended goal of addressing urgent competency gaps in Ghana’s energy sector.
In-depth viewpoints from participants were the objective of this study; however, future
researchers may consider exploring the concept of knowledge co-creation as a precursor to
knowledge-sharing. The point of departure for this research study was the assumption that
knowledge exists in either Indigenous or foreign SMEs. This reasoning beckons an inquiry into
knowledge-sharing behavior and factors to increase its effectiveness and further explains the
widely accepted knowledge-giver and knowledge-recipient construct. Thus, this study sought to
understand the factors that facilitate or inhibit knowledge sharing in independent entities. What if
the knowledge did not already exist, and Indigenous SMEs and foreign MNCs with different
expertise collaborated to create the new knowledge? Future research might problem more deeply
into knowledge-co-creation, as the joint construction of technical knowledge that is mutually
beneficial, but that which had not previously existed.
Thirdly, an opportunity for future research would be to conduct a broader study that
employs a different methodology in other oil and gas-producing African nations to understand
knowledge-sharing behavior and its impact on developing technical expertise. Quantitative

123
research could use surveys to solicit responses from many participants, but future researchers
ought to consider the tradeoff between qualitative research’s ability to obtain in-depth data and
nuanced subjective interpretations from a smaller set of participants. For this study, the explicit
choice was the constrain the research parameter to Ghana to allow in-depth analysis of
participants' lived experiences and subjective interpretations. Widening the research parameter in
future studies will increase the opportunity for generalizability across other African counties with
similar colonial, sociopolitical infrastructure, and cultural systems. However, future researchers
should exercise caution in extrapolating data from African contexts due to the multifaceted
nature of the diverse cultural systems, and the constant evolution of culture and society.
Inter-organizational knowledge sharing is informed by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems theory, with the overlapping influence of nested systems presenting a starting point for
understanding the inherent complexity of joint venture partnerships. However, another
opportunity for future research may consider the various contributory individual and
environmental factors, as well as embedded economic, political, and administrative systems,
from a network model approach. Such a pathway for inquiry will leverage network science
conceptualization to highlight the myriad of interacting individual and environmental factors.
Network science uses vertices and connections between elements to demonstrate linkages, and
also highlights both the structural and dynamic characteristics of systems and phenomena
(Baggio, 2022; Börner et al., 2008; Newman et al., 2006).
Finally, another promising line of inquiry is knowledge transfer in cross-cultural settings,
specifically in emerging markets in Africa. As distinguished in this study, knowledge sharing
pertains to the exchange of task-related expertise (Ahmad & Karim, 2019), while knowledge
transfer refers to the transmission of knowledge to specific settings for organizational

124
performance (Zheng, 2017). This study focused on the upstream oil and gas segment, including
exploration and production activities. Future research can explore the midstream and
downstream segments involving crude oil's transportation, storage, and refining. As such, given
the presumption that knowledge sharing occurs between Indigenous SMEs and foreign MNCs, a
deeper probe will be ascertaining the performance implications of the antecedent action,
knowledge sharing.
Conclusion
Knowledge, human capital, and intellectual assets will continue to be valuable
components for organizations pursuing competitive advantages. Blau and Scott (2003) made an
enduring argument, “Regardless of the time and effort devoted by management to designing a
rational organizational chart and elaborate procedure manuals, this official plan can never
completely determine the conduct and social relations of the organization’s members” (p.5).
Knowledge-sharing challenges are universal, but understanding any context's social and cultural
constructs warrants a multifaceted perspective that recognizes individual and environmental
drivers. The fact remains, that the knowledge-sharing process is complex, fraught with
multifaceted influencing factors for organizations, the individuals who work within them, and the
environments in which they operate.
Organizations can create change if they are willing to unlearn old habits and recognize
the apparent reality, albeit often underestimated: that no individual or organization knows it all.
Knowledge exchange can potentially leverage experiential and contextual knowledge for
mutually beneficial competitive advantages. Organizations that recognize this reality will
succeed in an increasingly interdependent global society, while the organizations that embrace
the status quo will continually deploy short-sighted and stop-gap measures, and face financial,

125
cultural, and operational hurdles. Indigenous SMEs are responsible as knowledge conduits to
effectively acquire and disseminate tacit and explicit knowledge. Indigenous SMEs are change
agents that can interrogate inefficient systems and push for mutually beneficial advantages. But
challenging the status quo starts with the courage to ask the right questions with the right
philosophical lenses and embark on a conscientious journey toward a lasting paradigm shift.

126
References
Abe, J. (2020). Beyond cultural competence, toward social transformation: Liberation
psychologies and the practice of cultural humility. Journal of Social Work Education,
56(4), 696-707. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1661911
Abugre, J. B., & Debrah, Y. A. (2019). Assessing the impact of cross-cultural communication
competence on expatriate business operations in multinational corporations of a subSaharan African context. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 19(1), 85-
104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595819839739
African Union (2020). The impact of Covid-19 on African Oil Sector: A special report by AFREC
on the implications on African Countries.
https://www.au.int/sites/default/files/documents/38601-doc-afrec_report-_covid19_and_its_impact_on_african_oil_markets-_final_27-05-2020.pdf
Ahmad, F., & Karim, M. (2019). Impacts of knowledge sharing: A review and directions for
future research. Journal of Workplace Learning, 31(3), 207-230.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JWL-07-2018-0096
Akhavan, P., Hosseini, S. M., Abbasi, M., & Manteghi, M. (2015). Knowledge-sharing
determinants, behaviors, and innovative work behaviors. Aslib Journal of Information
Management, 67(5), 562-591. https://doi:10.1108/AJIM-02-2015-0018
Al-Busaidi, K. A., & Olfman, L. (2017). Knowledge sharing through interorganizational
knowledge sharing systems. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management
Systems, 47(1), 110-136. https://doi.10.1108/VJIKMS-05-2016-0019
Al Mansoori, S., Salloum, S. A., & Shaalan, K. (2021). The impact of artificial intelligence and
information technologies on the efficiency of knowledge management at modern

127
organizations: A systematic review. In M. Al-Emran, K. Shaalan, & A. E. Hassanien
(Eds.), Recent Advances in Intelligent Systems and Smart Applications (pp. 163-182).
Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47411-9_9
Aluwihare-Samaranayake, D. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research: A view of the participants’
and researchers’ world for a critical standpoint. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 11(2), 64-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691201100208
Amoah, S. K., & Amoah, A. K. (2018). The role of small and medium enterprises to employment
in Ghana. International Journal of Business and Economics Research, 7, 151-157.
https://doi.10.11648/j.ijber.20180705.14
Anand, A., Muskat, B., Creed, A., Zutshi, A., & Csepregi, A. (2021). Knowledge sharing,
knowledge transfer and SMEs: Evolution, antecedents, outcomes and directions.
Personnel Review, 50(9), 1873-1893. https://doi:10.1108/PR-05-2020-0372
Andrenelli, A., et al. (2018). Multinational production and trade in services. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/16ec6b55-en
Andreotti, V. (2016). The educational challenges of imagining the world differently. Canadian
Journal of Development Studies, (37)1, 101-112,
https://doi:10.1080/02255189.2016.1134456
Ang, H. L., Fabeil, N. F., & Pang, Y. Y. (2022). The influence of tacit and explicit knowledge
sharing on organizational performance among manufacturing companies in Malaysia.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(3), 572–
587. http://doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i3/12985

128
Anwar, K. (2016). Impact of openness to experience on knowledge sharing under the mediating
effect of intention to share knowledge and moderating role of interpersonal trust. Jinnah
Business Review, (4)2, 30-37.
Areed, S., Salloum, S. A., & Shaalan, K. (2020). The role of knowledge management processes
for enhancing and supporting innovative organizations: A systematic review. In M. AlEmran, K. Shaalan, & A. E. Hassanien (Eds.), Recent Advances in Intelligent Systems and
Smart Applications (pp. 143-161). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47411-
9_8
Asante, J., Kissi, E., & Badu, E. (2018). Factorial analysis of capacity-building needs of smalland medium-scale building contractors in developing countries: Ghana as a case study.
An International Journal, 25(1), 357-372. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2016-0117
Asrar-ul-Haq, M., & Anwar, S. (2016). A systematic review of knowledge management and
knowledge sharing: Trends, issues, and challenges. Cogent Business and Management,
3(1), 1127744. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2015.1127744
Asumadu-Sarkodie, S., & Owusu, P. A. (2016). A review of Ghana’s energy sector national
energy statistics and policy framework. Cogent Engineering, 3(1), 1155274. https://doi:
10.1080/23311916.2016.1155274
Augustine, O., & Asiedu, E. (2017). Monetary versus fiscal policy effects on SMEs growth in
Africa: Evidence from Ghana. International Research Journal of Finance and
Economics, 164(1), 7-24.
Azema, P., & Jafari, M. (2016). The effect of dimensions of knowledge sharing on a variety of
strategic mind map of managers and employees. Independent Journal of Management
and Production, 7(4), 1256-1283.

129
Azzopardi, C., & McNeill, T. (2016). From cultural competence to cultural consciousness:
Transitioning to a critical approach to working across differences in social work. Journal
of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, (25)4, 282-299,
https://doi:10.1080/15313204.2016.1206494
Baah-Mintah, R., Owusu-Adjei, E., & Koomson, F. (2018). Education and training of small-scale
entrepreneurs: A tool for poverty reduction in the Nkoranza south municipality, Ghana.
Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 6(4), 143-151. https://doi:10.12691/jbms6-4-2
Baggio, R. (2022). Network Analysis. In: Egger, R. (eds) Applied Data Science in Tourism.
Tourism on the Verge. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88389-8_21.
Bailey, N., & Winchester, N. (2018). Framing social justice: The ties that bind a multinational
occupational community. Sociology (Oxford), 52(4), 796-812. https://doi
10.1177/0038038516670111
Ballor, G. A., & Yildirim, A. B, (2020). Multinational corporations and the politics of
international trade in multidisciplinary perspective. Business and Politics, 22(4), 573 –
586. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2020.14
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice
Hall.
Bizumic, B. (2015). Ethnocentrism. In R. A. Segal & K. von Stuckrad (Eds.), Vocabulary for the
study of religion (pp. 533–539). Brill Academic Publishers
Blazejewski, S. (2009). Actors' interests and local contexts in intrafirm conflict: The 2004 GM
and Opel crisis. Competition and Change, 13(3), 229-250.
https://doi:10.1179/102452909X451350

130
Blau, P.M. & Scott, W.R. (2003) Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. Stanford
University Press
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative data. In Qualitative research for education:
An introduction to theories and methods (pp. 117-129). Allyn and Bacon.
Börner, K., Sanyal, S., & Vespignani, A. (2008). Network Science. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2007.1440410119
Brätianu, C. (2019). Exploring knowledge entropy in organizations. Management Dynamics in
the Knowledge Economy, 7(3), 353-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.25019/MDKE/7.3.05
Brattström, A., Faems, D., & Mähring, M. (2019). From trust convergence to trust divergence:
Trust development in conflictual interorganizational relationships SAGE Publications.
https://doi:10.1177/0170840618789195
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Bouncken, R. B., Qiu, Y., Sinkovics, N., & Kürsten, W. (2021). Qualitative research: Extending
the range with flexible pattern matching. Review of Managerial Science, 15(2), 251-273.
https://doi:10.1007/s11846-021-00451-2
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (2019). Interviewing
essentials for new researchers. In Research Design and Methods: An Applied Guide for
the Scholar-Practitioner (pp. 147-159). Sage.
Calatayud, M. J, Candelas, J. C., & Fernández, P. P. (2008). The accountability of multinational
corporations for human rights' violations. Cuadernos constitucionales de la Cátedra
Fadrique Furió Ceriol, 64, 171-186

131
Calza, F., Aliane, N., & Cannavale, C. (2013). Cross‐cultural bridges in European firms’
internationalization to Islamic countries. EuroMed Journal of Business, 8(2), 172-187.
https://doi:10.1108/EMJB-07-2013-0038
Chang, Y., Gong, Y., & Peng, M. (2012). Expatriate Knowledge Transfer, Subsidiary
Absorbtive Capacity, and Subsidiary Performance. The Academy of Management
Journal, 55(4), 927-948
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Crawford, M. (2020). Ecological systems theory: Exploring the development of the theoretical
framework as conceived by Bronfenbrenner. Journal of Public Health Issues and
Practices, 4(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.33790/jphip1100170
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Curado, C., & Vieira, S. (2019). Trust, knowledge sharing and organizational commitment in
SMEs. Personnel Review, 48(6), 1449-1468. https://doi:10.1108/PR-03-2018-0094
Danso, R. (2016). Cultural competence and cultural humility: A critical reflection on key cultural
diversity concepts. Journal of Social Work, 18(4), 410–430.
https://doi:10.1177/1468017316654341
David W. De Long, & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge
management. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(4), 113-127.
https://doi:10.5465/ame.2000.3979820
Del Giudice, M., Carayannis, E.G., & Maggioni, V. (2017). Global knowledge intensive
enterprises and international technology transfer: Emerging perspectives from a

132
quadruple helix environment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, (42)2, 229-
235.Delipinar, G., & Kocaoglu, B. (2016). Using SCOR model to gain competitive
advantage: A Literature review. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 229, 398 – 406
Dickson, R. S., & Yao, D. (2020). The impact and opportunities of Covid-19 in Ghana. Open
Journal of Social Sciences, 8(10), 71-86. https://doi:10.4236/jss.2020.810006
Dörrenbächer C. and Geppert M. (eds) (2011) Politics and Power in the International
Corporation: The Role of Institutions, Interests and Identities. Cambridge University
Press
Dutta, M. J., & Dutta, D. (2013). Multinational going cultural: A postcolonial deconstruction of
cultural intelligence. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 6(3),
241-258. https://doi:10.1080/17513057.2013.790989
Dutta, M. J., & Elers, S. (2020). Public relations, indigeneity and colonization: Indigenous
resistance as dialogic anchor. Public Relations Review, 46(1), 101852.
https://doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101852
Earl, A. (2022). Your westernized habits: Contextual nuances of qualitative research in Russia.
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 17(1), 1-19.
https://doi:10.1108/QROM-06-2020-1972
Ellis K.M., Lamont B.T., Reus T., & Faifman L. (2015). Mergers and acquisitions in Africa: A
review and an emerging research agenda. Africa Journal of Management. 1(2), 137-171.
https://doi:10.1080/23322373.2015.1028274
Eriksson, M., Mehdi Ghazinour, & Hammarström, A. (2018). Different uses of Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological theory in public mental health research: What is their value for guiding public

133
mental health policy and practice? Social Theory Health, 16, 414–433.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-018-0065-6
Fait, M., Scorrano, P., Mastroleo, G., Cillo, V., & Scuotto, V. (2019). A novel view on knowledge
sharing in the agri-food sector. Journal of Knowledge Management, (23)5, 953-974.
Fang, Y., Jiang, G. F., Makino, S., & Beamish, P. W. (2010). Multinational firm knowledge, use
of expatriates, and foreign subsidiary performance. Journal of Management Studies,
47(1), 27-54. https://doi 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00850.x
Ferner, A., Edwards, T., & Tempel, A. (2012). Power, institutions and the cross-national transfer
of employment practices in multinationals. SAGE Publications.
https://doi:10.1177/0018726711429494
Ferraris, A., Santoro, G., & Dezi, L. (2017). How MNC’s subsidiaries may improve their
innovative performance? The role of external sources and knowledge management
capabilities. Journal of Knowledge Management, (21)3, 540-552.
Fisher-Borne, M., Cain, J. M., & Martin, S. L. (2015). From mastery to accountability: Cultural
humility as an alternative to cultural competence. Social Work Education, 34, 165–181.
https://doi:10.1080/02615479.2014.977244
Foley C. F., Hines, J.R., & Wessel, D. (2021). Global goliaths: Multinational corporations in the
21st century economy. Brookings Institution Press.
Fong, P. C. (2023). An understanding of Christians’ roles in human migration through the biblical
theme of Shamar: From genesis to the good Samaritan. Religions, 14(5), 600.
https://doi:10.3390/rel14050600

134
Fong Boh, W., Nguyen, T.T., & Xu, Y. (2013). Knowledge transfer across dissimilar cultures.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 29-46.
https://doi:10.1108/13673271311300723
Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the
social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge.
Gentle-Genitty C., Merrit B., & Kimble-Hill A.C. (2021). A model for crafting diversity,
inclusion, respect, and equity policy statements toward catalyzing organizational change.
ACS Central Science, 7(3), 383-391. https://doi:10.1021/acscentsci.0c01533
Ghana Ministry of Finance. (2021). Highlights of the 2021 budget statement.
https://www.mofep.gov.gh/sites/default/files/budget-statements/2021-
BudgetHighlights_v1.pdf
Goldman, S., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1997). The cognition and technology group at Vanderbilt:
Achieving meaningful mathematics literacy for students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 198–208.
Guess, T. J. (2006). The social construction of whiteness: Racism by intent, racism by
consequence. Critical Sociology, 32(4), 649-673.
Guo, W., Yang, J., Li, D., & Lyu, C. (2020). Knowledge sharing and knowledge protection in
strategic alliances: The effects of trust and formal contracts. Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management, 32(11), 1366-1378. https://doi:10.1080/09537325.2020.1769840
Harley, B., & Cornelissen, J. (2022). Rigor with or without templates: The pursuit of
methodological rigor in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 239-
261. https://doi:10.1177/1094428120937786

135
Harzing, W., Pudelko, M., & Reiche S. B. (2016). The bridging role of expatriates and inpatriates
in knowledge transfer in multinational corporations. Human Resource Management
(55)4, 679–695. https://doi:10.1002/hrm.21681
Hashim, K.F., & Tan, F.B. (2015). The mediating role of trust and commitment on members’
continuous knowledge sharing intention: a commitment-trust theory perspective.
International Journal of Information Management, (35)2, 145-151.
Heim, I., Kalyuzhnova, Y., Li, W., & Liu, K. K. (2019). Value co‐creation between foreign firms
and Indigenous small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) in Kazakhstan’s oil and gas
industry: The role of information technology spillovers. Thunderbird International
Business Review, 61, 911–927. https://doi:10.1002/tie.22067
Holcombe, R. G. (2022). Creative destruction: Getting ahead and staying ahead in a capitalist
economy. The Review of Austrian Economics, 35(4), 467-480.
https://doi:10.1007/s11138-020-00523-8
Huaulmé, A., Dardenne, G., Labbe, B., Gelin, M., Chesneau, C., Diverrez, J. M., & Jannin, P.
(2022). Surgical declarative knowledge learning: Concept and acceptability study.
Informa UK Limited, 27(1), 74-83 https://doi:10.1080/24699322.2022.2086484
Hurrell, D. (2021). Conceptual knowledge or procedural knowledge, or conceptual knowledge
and procedural knowledge: Why the conjunction is important for teachers. The Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 46(2), 57-71. https://doi:10.14221/ajte.2021v46n2.4
Jiang, X., M. Li, S. Gao, Y. Bao, & Jiang, F. (2013). Managing Knowledge Leakage in Strategic
Alliances: The Effects of Trust and Formal Contracts. Industrial Marketing Management,
42(6), 983–991.

136
Johnson, V. S. (2016). When Blackness Stings: African and Afro-Caribbean Immigrants, Race,
and Racism in Late Twentieth-Century America. Journal of American Ethnic History,
36(1), 31–62. https://doi.org/10.5406/jamerethnhist.36.1.0031
Kastning, T. (2011). Basic overview of Ghana's emerging oil industry. Friedrich Ebert Stifung.
https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/ghana/10490.pdf
Kedia, B. L., Rhew, N. D., Gaffney, N. T., & Clampit, J. A. (2016). Emerging market
multinationals: Coopetition for global growth. Thunderbird International Business
Review, 58(6), 515-526. https://doi:10.1002/tie.21758
Kim, S. L., Cheong, M., Srivastava, A., Yoo, Y., & Yun, S. (2021). Knowledge sharing and
creative behavior: The interaction effects of knowledge sharing and regulatory focus on
creative behavior. Human Performance, 34(1), 49-66.
https://doi:10.1080/08959285.2020.1852240
Kirmayer, L. J. (2012). Rethinking cultural competence. Transcultural Psychiatry, 49(2), 149–
164. https://doi:10.1177/ 1363461512444673
Krumova, M. Y., & Milanezi, B. D. (2014). Knowledge sharing and collaboration 2.0.
Transactions on Knowledge Society, 7(4), 51-56.
Kuschminder, K. (2014). Knowledge transfer and capacity building through the temporary return
of qualified nationals to Afghanistan. International Migration, 52(5), 191-207.
https://doi:10.1111/imig.12065
Kwarteng K. (2014). War and gold: A five-hundred-year history of empires, adventures and debt.
Bloomsbury.

137
Lau, J., & Ng, K. (2014). Conceptualizing the counseling training environment using
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory. International Journal for the Advancement of
Counselling, 36(4), 423-439. https://doi:10.1007/s10447-014-9220-5
Loebbecke, C., Van Fenema, P. C., & Powell, P. (2016). Managing interorganizational
knowledge sharing. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 25(1), 4-14.
https//doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2015.12.002
Love, B. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of
educational freedom. Beacon Press.
Martins, J. (2016). Factors in the effective transfer of knowledge from multinational enterprises
to their foreign subsidiaries: A Mozambican case study. International Journal of Training
and Development, 20(3), 224-237. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12077
Massingham, P. (2014). An evaluation of knowledge management tools: Managing knowledge
flows and enablers. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(6), 1101-1126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2014-0084
Mcinerney, C., & Koenig, M. (2011). Knowledge management processes in organizations:
Theoretical foundations and practice. Morgan & Claypool Publishers
https://doi:10.2200/S00323ED1V01Y201012ICR018.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Research design and research methods. In Integrating qualitative and
quantitative methods (pp. 45-62). Sage
Mosher, D. K., Hook, J. N., Farrell, J. E., Watkins, C. E., Jr., & Davis, D. E. (2017). Cultural
humility. In E. L. Worthington Jr., D. E. Davis, & J. N. Hook (Eds.), Handbook of

138
humility: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 91–104). Routledge/Taylor & Francis
Group.
Muñoz-Pascual, L., & Galende, J. (2020). Ambidextrous knowledge and learning capability: The
magic potion for employee creativity and sustainable innovation performance.
Sustainability, 12(10), 3966. https://doi:10.3390/su12103966
Ndiaye, N., Razak, L. A., Nagayev, R., & Ng, A. (2018). Demystifying small and medium
enterprises’ (SMEs) performance in emerging and developing economies. Borsa Istanbul
Review, 18(4), 1-17. https://doi:10.1016/j.bir.2018.04.00Newman, M., Barabasi, A., &
Watts, D. (2006). The Structure and Dynamics of Networks. Princeton Studies in
Complexity.
Nguyen, T., Siri, N. S., & Malik, A. (2022). Multilevel influences on individual knowledge
sharing behaviours: The moderating effects of knowledge sharing opportunity and
collectivism. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(1), 70-87. https://doi:10.1108/JKM01-2021-0009
Ntiamoah, E. B., Li, D., & Kwamega, M. (2016). Impact of government and other institutions’
support on performance of small and medium enterprises in the agribusiness sector in
Ghana. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 6, 558-567.
https://doi:10.4236/ajibm.2016.65052
Ouakouak, M. L., & Ouedraogo, N. (2019). Fostering knowledge sharing and knowledge
utilization. Business Process Management Journal, 25(4), 757-779.
https://doi:10.1108/BPMJ-05-2017-0107
Painter, N. I. (2010). The history of white people. W.W. Norton & Company

139
Pal, M., & Dutta, M. J. (2008). Theorizing resistance in a global context processes, strategies,
and tactics in communication scholarship. Annals of the International Communication
Association, 32(1), 41-87. https://doi:10.1080/23808985.2008.11679075
Park, C., Ghauri, P. N., Lee, J. Y., & Golmohammadi, I. (2022). Unveiling the black box of IJV
innovativeness: The role of explicit and tacit knowledge transfer. Journal of International
Management, 28(4), 100956. https://doi:10.1016/j.intman.2022.100956
Peprah, J. A., Mensah, A. O., & Akosah, N. B. (2016). Small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) accessibility to public procurement: SMEs entity perspective in Ghana.
European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 4(11), 25-40. Retrieved from
http://www.ejbss.com/
Pegram, J., Falcone, G., & Kolios, A. (2018). A review of job role localization in the oil and gas
industry. Energies (Basel), 11(10), 2779. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11102779
Petrakis, P.E., & Kostis, P.C. (2015). The role of knowledge and trust in SMEs. Journal of the
Knowledge Economy, (6)1, 105-124.
Petroleum Commission. (2015). Upstream operators in Ghana’s oil and gas industry.
https://www.petrocom.gov.gh/upstream-operators.html
Pian, Q.Y., Jin, H., & Li, H. (2019). Linking knowledge sharing to innovative behavior: The
moderating role of collectivism. Journal of Knowledge Management, (23)8, 1652-1672,
https://doi: 10.1108/jkm12-2018-0753.
Ramdoo, I. (2016). Unpacking local content requirements in the extractive sector: What
implications for the global trade and investment frameworks? International Centre for
Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and World Economic Forum.
https://doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4943.5129

140
Richland, L. E., Stigler, J. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Teaching the conceptual structure of
mathematics. Educational Psychologist 47(3), 189-203.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.667065
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2015). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge in
mathematics. In R. Cohen Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), Oxford handbook of numerical
cognition (pp. 1102-1118). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.013.014
Rivera, A. E., Rodríguez-Aceves, L., & Mojarro-Duran, B. I. (2021). Enabling knowledge
sharing through psychological safety in inter-organisational arrangements. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 25(5), 1170-1193. https://doi:10.1108/JKM-04-2020-0241
Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its
evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 5(4), 243-
258. https://doi:10.1111/jftr.12022
Rose, J., & Johnson, C. W. (2020). Contextualizing reliability and validity in qualitative
research: Toward more rigorous and trustworthy qualitative social science in leisure
research. Journal of Leisure Research, 51(4), 432-451.
https://doi:10.1080/00222216.2020.1722042
Rosen, D., McCall, J., & Goodkind, S. (2017). Teaching critical self-reflection through the lens
of cultural humility: An assignment in a social work diversity course. Social Work
Education, 36(3), 289–298. https://doi:10.1080/02615479.2017.1287260
Sackey, A. D., Tchouangeup, B., Lamptey, B. L., van der Merwe, B., Lee, R. O., & Mensah, R.,
(2021). Outlining the challenges of Covid-19 health crises in Africa’s maritime industry:

141
The case of maritime operations in marine warranty surveying practice. Maritime Studies,
20(2), 207-223. https://doi:10.1007/s40152-021-00220-7
Sarwar, G. S., & Trumpower, D. L. (2015). Effects of conceptual, procedural, and declarative
reflection on students' structural knowledge in physics. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 63(2), 185-201. https://doi:10.1007/s11423-015-9368-7
Sefidanoski, A. (2018). Deep learning and optimization of organizational memory. Journal
Science and Research, 1(3), 115-118.
Shadle, B. (2015). The souls of white folk. Manchester University Press.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv18b5hjh
Shah, S. Z. A., Anwar, M. M., & Hussain, C. M. (2021). Top managers' attributes, innovation,
and the participation in China–Pakistan economic corridor: A study of energy sector
small and medium‐sized enterprises. Managerial and Decision Economics, 42(2), 385-
406. https://doi:10.1002/mde.3242
Stan, S., & Vlad, M. (2018). The influence of cultural differences and its application in
Multinational Organizations. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, (6)3,
405.
Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative
research. The Clinical Teacher, 17(6), 596-599. https://doi:10.1111/tct.13242
Thanetsunthorn, N., & Wuthisatian, R. (2019). Understanding trust across cultures: An empirical
investigation. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 29(4), 286-314.
https://doi:10.1108/RIBS-12-2018-0103
Tordo, S., Warner, M., Manzano, O., & Anouti, Y. (2013). Local content policies in the oil and
gas sector. World Bank Publications. https://doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-9931-6

142
Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and misuses of
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory
and Review, 1(4), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.
Tuck, E., & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, replacement, and settler futurity.
Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(1), 72-89.
Udomkit, N., Ensslin, V., & Meinhold, R. (2020). Three stages of trust building of international
small- and medium-sized enterprises. Global Business Review, 21(4), 906-917.
https://doi:10.1177/0972150919856990
UN Capital Development Fund (UNCDF). (2021). Understanding MSMEs and entrepreneurs'
appetite for crowdfunding solutions in Ghana. Understanding-msmes-and-entrepreneursappetite-for-crowdfunding-solutions-in-ghana. https://www.uncdf.org/article/6509/
Usman, M., Ahmad, M. I., & Burgoyne, J. (2019). Individual and organizational learning from
inter‐firm knowledge sharing: A framework integrating inter‐firm and intra‐firm
knowledge sharing and learning. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 36(4),
484-497. https://doi:10.1002/cjas.1517
Vaaland, T. I., Soneye, S. O. A., Owusu, R. A. (2011). Local content and struggling suppliers: A
network analysis of Nigerian oil and gas industry. African Journal of Business
Management, 6(15), 5399-5413.
Van Fenema, P., & Loebbecke, C. (2014). Towards a framework for managing strategic tensions
in dyadic interorganizational relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30 (4),
516-524. https://doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2014.03.002

143
Villamizar, R., Margarita, M., Castañeda Z., & Ignacio, D. (2014). Relation between
organizational climate and its dimensions and knowledge sharing behavior among
knowledge workers. International Journal of Psychological Research, 7(2), 64-75.
Watson, M., (2017). Exploring the concept of community in relation to early years practice.
Education in the North, 24(2), 63-71.
Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G., & Coffey, V. (2013). Organizational culture and
willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context.
International Journal of Project Management, 38(8), 1163–1174.
World Health Organisation. (2020). Update WHO recommendations for International Traffic in
relation to Covid-19 Outbreak. https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updatedwhorecommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19- outbreak.
Wheeler, C. M., Baffes, J., Kabundi, A., Kindberg-Hanlon, G., Nagle, P. S., & Ohnsorge, F.
(2020). Adding fuel to the fire: Cheap oil during the Covid-19 pandemic. World Bank.
http://localhost:4000//entities/publication/839c8d53-5162-5176-ae5e-4d3065c2e16b
Wright, J. C., Nadelhoffer, T., Perini, T., Langville, A., Echols, M., & Venezia, K. (2017). The
psychological significance of humility. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(1), 3–12.
https://doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1167940
Yang, Z., Nguyen, V. T., & Le, P. B. (2018). Knowledge sharing serves as a mediator between
collaborative culture and innovation capability: An empirical research. The Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, 33(7), 958-969. https://doi:10.1108/JBIM-10-2017-
0245

144
Yeboah, A. M. (2015). Determinants of SME growth: An empirical perspective of SMEs in the
Cape Coast metropolis in Ghana. Journal of Business in Developing Nations, 14(1), 1-31.
https://www.jjay.cuny.edu/
Zalengera, C., Chitawo, M. L., Chitedze, I., To, L. S., Mwale, V., Gondwe, K. T., & Maroyi, T.
(2021). Unbending the winding path of a low-income country’s energy sector amid the
Covid-19 pandemic: Perspectives from Malawi. Energies, 14(21), 7184.
https://doi:10.3390/en14217184
Zhao, S., Jiang, Y., Peng, X., & Hong, J. (2021). Knowledge sharing direction and innovation
performance in organizations: Do absorptive capacity and individual creativity matter?
European Journal of Innovation Management, (24)2, 371-394.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-09-2019-0244

145
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Interviewees are executive leaders that have experience in an SME that interfaces with
MNCs in Ghana’s energy sector.
Introduction to Interview
Thank you for your time. I appreciate the time that you have set aside to answer my
questions. The interview should take about an hour, and I hope that works for you. As an
introduction, I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California, and I am
conducting a study on knowledge sharing in the energy sector. The purpose of my study is to
understand the factors that affect knowledge sharing between multinational corporations (MNCs)
and Small and Medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in cross-cultural settings. Specifically, I am
interested in the individual and environmental influences on knowledge sharing in Ghana’s
energy sector. I will be speaking with people in executive leadership, like yourself, from other
organizations to learn more from their perspectives also. The findings from this study will
provide the basis for recommendations to address identified gaps.
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of a researcher today. The nature of
my questions is not evaluative. I will not be making any judgments on leadership style or the
organization. My goal is to understand your perspective. This interview is confidential. What that
means is that I will not share your name or organization with anyone outside of the dissertation
committee and review board. I will not include any identifiable information including your name
or the organization in my dissertation. I will use a pseudonym to protect your confidentiality and
will try my best to de-identify any of the data I gather from you.
Before we begin, I brought a recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what
you share with me. This will help me to go back and listen to all the information you will

146
provide. I will be the only one with access and I will delete it as soon as I am finished. May I
have your permission to record our conversation? Also, as a reminder, you may withdraw or stop
at any time. Do I have your consent to participate in this study? I will start the recording now.
Table A1
Interview Questions
Interview questions Potential probes RQ Key concept
addressed
1. Tell me about your
professional experience in
the energy sector?
a. How many years have you
worked in the energy
industry?
b. What roles or positions do
you currently occupy?
1, 2 Leadership
(microsystem)
2. What kinds of foreign
MNCs do you partner with?
a. How would you describe
your ideal foreign joint
venture partner?
1,2
Cultural values,
globalization
(exosystem)
3. How do you describe
knowledge in your
organization?
a. Can you describe your
attitude towards knowledge
sharing?
b. What about the types of
knowledge that are shared
between your organization
and foreign partners?
1,2
Tacit and
explicit
knowledge
(microsystem)
4. What are some
organizational practices
(policies, procedures,
training, etc.) that influence
your knowledge sharing
with foreign partners?
1
Cultural
competence,
cultural settings
(microsystem)
5. In what ways does your
local culture influence your
organization’s selection of a
foreign partner?
1
Cultural values,
globalization
(microsystem)
6. What knowledge do you
think is necessary to
perform technical tasks?
a. What type of knowledge do
you consider to be lacking?
1 Declarative,
procedural, and
conceptual
knowledge
(microsystem)

147
Interview questions Potential probes RQ Key concept
addressed
7. What expectations do you
have for a foreign MNC
partner?
a. What specific knowledge are
you interested in acquiring
from a partner?
1
Globalization,
network
influences
(mesosystem)
8. How do the experiences of
your peers impact your
interactions with foreign
companies?
2
Leadership,
relationships
(microsystem)
9. How does your organization
establish trust with foreign
partners?
a. How does trust influence
your knowledge sharing
practices with foreign
partners?
2
Trust,
cultural
influences,
(mesosystem)
10. How do historical influences
affect knowledge sharing
with foreign companies?
2
Historical
influences,
cultural
influences,
(exosystem)
11. What can your organization
do to encourage effective
collaboration with foreign
partners?
a. How do socialization
opportunities
(communicating and
interacting with others)
influence your knowledge
sharing behavior with foreign
partners?
2
Tacit and
explicit
knowledge,
network
influences
(mesosystem)
12. What are your perceptions
of MNCs’ organizational
policies regarding
Indigenous enterprises?
a. What advice would you give
to executive leaders as they
prepare to collaborate with
foreign MNCs?
2
Cultural
settings,
organizational
policies
(exosystem)
13. How do government
regulations affect local
partnerships with foreign
companies?
2
Government
agencies
(mesosystem)
14. How do you describe the
kind of support you receive
from government and local
regulatory agencies?
a. Can you give me some
examples? 2
Government
agencies
(Mesosystem)
15. Are there any additional
factors that facilitate or
inhibit knowledge sharing
which you have experienced
that you wish to share?
1, 2

148
Conclusion to the Interview:
Thank you very much for sharing your experiences with me today. I really appreciate
your time and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my
study. Please, if I find myself with a follow-up question, I hope I can reach you through email.
Again, thank you for participating in my study.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Impact of job insecurity on intergenerational knowledge sharing among machinists in the United States

PDF

Knowledge sharing: valuing everyone at the table

PDF

Key factors for successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact driven grantmaking practices

PDF

Knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals at a small faith-based higher education institution

PDF

An examination of factors that contribute to the shortage of behavioral health providers in the United States Navy

PDF

Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

PDF

A qualitative study that examines the transformational factors that prevent cybersecurity from being a funding priority in healthcare organizations

PDF

Impact of performance appraisals on double-hatting employees

PDF

IT belongingness: from outcasts to technology leaders in higher education – a promising practice

PDF

Life sciences executive leadership’s perspective on organizational change

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Making a case for teaching religious literacy in Ethiopian schools: an innovation study

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

Understanding conditions for executive coaching success from the leader's point of view

PDF

Hidden perspectives: narratives of female family caregiver experiences

PDF

Health care disparities and the influence of nurse leader cultural competency: an evaluation study

PDF

COVID-19's impact on Christian cross-cultural workers

PDF

Cultural wealth exploration of Black female executives and its additive value in STEM corporations: a cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) analysis

PDF

Information technology architects’ shift to remote work: an exploration of collaboration challenges

PDF

The underrepresentation of African American officers in senior leadership positions in the United States Army

Asset Metadata

Creator Edmonds, Eric Obeng-Amoako (author)

Core Title Understanding cross-cultural knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector: an exploratory study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 10/04/2023

Defense Date 09/08/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag cross-cultural knowledge transfer,globalization,international management,knowledge sharing,knowledge transfer,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational competency,organizational culture

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Pritchard, Marcus (committee member)

Creator Email eedmonds@usc.edu,eoedmonds@outlook.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113719161

Unique identifier UC113719161

Identifier etd-EdmondsEri-12411.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-EdmondsEri-12411

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Edmonds, Eric Obeng-Amoako

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20231004-usctheses-batch-1100 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu