Network knowledge gathering of international new ventures, approaches, and preconditions

Learning is a process that enables an entity to increase its range of potential behavior through its processing of information. A company learns if any of its units acquires knowledge potentially useful to the organization [Huber, 1991]. Although the other definitions of organizational learning also comprise more elements than knowledge gathering, such as assimilation, exploration, and exploitation of new knowledge [March, 1991; Hessels and van Stel, 2011], in this paper, we apply the one proposed by Huber and concentrate on activities related to knowledge gathering.

The knowledge useful in the internationalization process comprises host market knowledge, technological knowledge, and the knowledge of how to engage in international operations. The ability to gather knowledge about a new host country is critical in helping firms to overcome their liability of foreignness [Oviatt and McDougall, 2005]. Besides foreign market knowledge, companies, especially knowledge-intensive firms for whom knowledge is relatively more important than other inputs [Starbuck, 1992], also need technological knowledge to help them develop new products or to adapt existing products to local markets’ needs. The third type of knowledge useful for the internationalization process is knowledge about how to engage in international operations. This comprises knowledge of market entry strategies, how to implement market entry decisions in new territories (market entry knowledge), and how to manage the enterprise effectively across multiple international territories (international enterprise knowledge) [Fletcher et al., 2018].

Currently, scholars report that experiential knowledge discussed in classical internationalization models is not the only strong predictor of international activities, and they instead indicate a multitude of potential knowledge sources. As shown in the literature study conducted by de Clercq et al. [2012], relying on Huber's [1991] framework, INVs’ learning may have five dimensions depending on the knowledge sources and gathering processes:

Experiential learning – INVs, by definition, cannot learn from international experience before they internationalize [Autio et al., 2000]; however, their experiential learning gains importance at later internationalization stages.

A single company may simultaneously apply different learning types and gather knowledge from different sources. Furthermore, learning needs, priorities, and approaches vary depending on the stage of internationalization [Anderson et al., 1998]. Although congenital knowledge of a firm's founders does influence the pace of going international for young companies, such effects are not visible in relation to older firms, as shown by Casillas et al. [2015]. Inherited and accumulated knowledge can simply get outdated, thereby undermining the performance of the company [Reuber and Fischer, 1997; Fletcher and Harris, 2012]. Congenital knowledge gathering is, therefore, the most important process before internationalization, which can eventually be replaced by experiential learning [Pellegrino and McNaughton, 2015]. Searching is applied before entering a given foreign market, and vicarious knowledge gathering gains importance during the later internationalization phase. Moreover, some types of learning interact: for example, vicarious learning is much more strongly connected with export intensity, if the experiential learning is also high [Casillas et al., 2015].

“A network consists of a set of actors or nodes along with a set of ties of a specified type (…) that link them” [Borgatti and Halgin, 2011, p. 1169]. The social network concept was introduced by Barnes [1954], who, when describing social relationships in a small local society, pointed out the direct and indirect ties connecting people. Nowadays, a social network is generally understood as a set of people who socially interact with individuals. These networks are based on ties to family, close friends, and acquaintances [Granovetter, 1973], whereas business networks are based on directly and indirectly connected business relationships [Anderson et al., 1994]. A business network comprises a network of actors, a network of activities, and a network of resources [Håkansson and Johanson, 1992]. The subnetwork of actors comprises, among others, companies, departments, groups, and individuals, while “the individuals form a social network built on interactions consisting mainly of social exchanges, but information and business exchanges can also take place” [Björkman and Kock, 1995, pp. 520–521]. An important characteristic of business relationships is, therefore, their informal character, as they are based on relations between individuals in the firms [Holm et al., 1996]. Every network has a cultural component comprising values, attitudes, and behaviors influencing the way the individuals interact [Björkman and Kock, 1995]. Because of the interconnectedness and the similarities between social and business networks, it is widely accepted to apply the social exchange networks perspective to analyze cooperation in business relationships within business networks [cf. Björkman and Kock, 1995; Holm et al., 1996]. The social network of INVs can transform into business relationships, and vice versa [Vasilchenko and Morrish, 2011]. Business networks are dynamic – they change depending on the market conditions and entrepreneurs’ needs [Gilmore and Carson, 1999].

Social networks are mostly characterized as personal bonds built upon goodwill and trust [Chen, 1994]; therefore, social networks are claimed to be an efficient means to respond to the global supply chains demand, as they reduce the information and knowledge barriers [Zhou et al., 2007]. INVs take advantage of networks at all stages of internationalization, whereby the role and the nature of these networks change with the age of the company [Hite and Hesterly, 2001], as well as with its progress toward internationalization. Both social and business networks are crucial for a firm's internationalization process. Social networks are critical for INVs’ internationalization, especially at the beginning of this process, wherein they are used to explore internationalization opportunities. Business networks, on the other hand, are especially important for exploiting international opportunities. They help to acquire local market knowledge and customers and to diminish barriers, such as lack of knowledge or skills, caused by INVs’ small sizes [Vasilchenko and Morrish, 2011].

The processes of networking and knowledge gathering are strongly interconnected. On the one hand, repeated interaction facilitates knowledge creation and transfer, as it lowers the barriers to combine and exchange intellectual resources [Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998]. Therefore, network development has a positive impact on knowledge creation [Tolstoy, 2010]. And vice versa: entrepreneurs with international experience and knowledge are more likely to be able to use foreign business networks and to have developed the capabilities needed to identify and negotiate with foreign business partners [Reuber and Fischer, 1997]. Entrepreneurs can develop networking skills or competencies over time. They learn from their experience about whom or where to network with, as well as how to do it effectively [Gilmore, 2011]. The ability to search within and across sources of knowledge also depends on the size and heterogeneity of these networks. Entrepreneurs with greater heterogeneity of social ties, as well as past knowledge and experiences, tend to be more creative [Leyden et al., 2014]. Overall, information exchange, learning, and knowledge gathering are reported to be the essence of networking. According to Thornton et al. [2014] organizational networking has four dimensions: information acquisition, opportunity enabling, strong-tie resource mobilization, and weak-tie resource mobilization. Dean et al. [1997] claim that most companies understand networking as “joining together with a common objective, working together, and co-operating”, but the second most common perception is that networks are for “exchange of and sharing of ideas, knowledge, and technology”.

The information that companies obtain via partners can refer to potential suppliers, customers, competitors, technological development, gaps in the market, local knowledge of a foreign market, and so on [Thornton et al., 2013]. Although this market knowledge usually does not directly influence sales figures, companies need to gather a whole range of information to make decisions to develop and improve their offerings [Cui and O’Connor, 2012]. Networks, as information-gathering sources, can be of the highest importance for internationalized companies, as local markets can be very different from their home markets [Thornton et al., 2013]. Oviatt and McDougall [1994] have reported that INVs rely heavily on their foreign partners in the internationalization processes. Learning from network partners supports firms in assessing and evaluating the foreign market situation [Rocks et al., 2005; Gilmore, 2011]. It also maintains awareness of market-related issues, helping, in addition to being an inspiration, stimulating and pressing INVs to internationalize [Bengtsson, 2004; Oviatt and McDougall, 2005].

The study of Gabrielsson et al. [2008] shows that INVs learn because of their capability to get knowledge from channels/network partners or through cooperation with larger initial customers, as opposed to the approach of “traditional” SME exporters. Depending on the type of information needed, companies establish different relations with partners in foreign markets. Thornton et al. [2013, p. 1159] identify three important sources of information-using networks:

Direct interaction partners (i.e., customers and suppliers). These are “the first point of call when firms need to make sense of their current position in the market (i.e., against its competitors)” [Thornton et al., 2013, p. 1159]. Information sharing, in this case, is based on mutual trust and understanding, developed in earlier dealings. The information shared is often adjusted to fit the circumstances of the particular relationships involved. Although customers and suppliers are not allowed to reveal sensitive information about focal firm competitors, they can offer insights about the competitor's position on the market. They can also provide information about market dynamics.

Using one source of knowledge does not limit the use of another [Fletcher and Harris, 2012]. When a company establishes a multitude of channels through which it can obtain valuable information and combine that information with established, less-established, trust-based, non-trust-based, and new and indirect relationships, it can strongly improve that company's market strategic position [Thornton et al., 2013]. Small companies, however, may lack useful networks and knowledge, as well as knowledge on how to build them. Moreover, developing strong network relationships can also take too long for firms seeking rapid internationalization [Fletcher and Harris, 2012]; therefore, learning through networks may be not so visible at the beginning of their internationalization process in the case of companies missing out on inherited knowledge.

After a company's inception, gathering the knowledge useful for internationalization through network partners combines the elements of searching, noticing, vicarious learning, and experiential learning. All the processes may be intentional or not. Searching is intentional by definition and may occur in three forms: scanning (wide-ranging sensing of the international environment), focused search (active search in a narrow segment of the organization's environment, often being an answer to current or suspected problems or opportunities), and performance monitoring (both focused and wide-ranging sensing of the organization's effectiveness in fulfilling its goals). Unlike searching, noticing refers to the unintended acquisition of information [Huber, 1991], being usually informal and involuntary. Noticing is influenced by entrepreneurs’ habits and beliefs, about what is and what ought to be [Starbuck and Milliken, 2006]. It depends on the entrepreneur, whether and how the company will make sense of noticing. Vicarious learning may comprise gathering intelligence or making benchmarking studies, intentionally or unintentionally coming across valuable information [Bengtsson, 2004]. Similarly, experiential learning does not have to be intentional [Bengtsson, 2004].

The use of intentional or unintentional learning depends to a large extent on the knowledge already possessed by the company. According to Autio et al. [2000], learning is most efficient in domains close to firms’ existing knowledge, which allows them to recognize the value of new information, as well as to assimilate and to adopt it. Companies without prior knowledge in a given field may be unable to acquire this knowledge readily. Firms may simply not be aware that they should develop their knowledge without having some prior knowledge to value it appropriately. This self-reinforcing cycle can be a barrier to learn about foreign markets, as knowledge of them can be completely new for the company. As new knowledge cannot be defined in advance and the companies may simply not be able to plan the learning process, the gathering of new knowledge is often an unintentional process. Companies do not search for it actively and deliberately but have the capability to absorb new, unexpected knowledge, as well as to react to unexpected information. This approach is typical for international opportunity exploration, which “can result from an unexpected opportunity rather than through planned action determined by strategic decisions, rational processes, or systematic information gathering” [Vasilchenko and, Morrish, 2011, p. 101]. Such incidental learning, often facilitated by managers, supervisors, and peers, is also perceived to be generally common in the case of small and medium companies [Clarke et al., 2006]. The search for knowledge similar to an existing one, however, can be unintentional, or intentional, as companies know what to search for or at least are able to recognize its value.

The intentional knowledge gathering may be formal, if the company carefully designs the knowledge-gathering process, or informal, if it seeks knowledge deliberately, though without a detailed plan. The second case may occur when the sources of knowledge are not known in advance, so the company creates and uses every opportunity. Unintentional knowledge gathering is informal as it is conducted unofficially and casually without planning.

Another important distinction between intentional and unintentional learning may be the speed of knowledge gathering. In contrast to exploration, exploitation may be “obtained faster, more correctly, and with more intense feedback” [Lin and Si, 2019, p. 197]. Intentional knowledge gathering usually allows faster learning. If knowledge is not intentionally acquired, it may take some time from the moment the information is found until the knowledge is acquired, because of two reasons. First of all, the company may not need the knowledge at the given moment. Secondly, the process of assessing whether it is worthwhile to invest in gaining a given knowledge may take some time. Moreover, in many cases, knowledge that has not been sought may never be assimilated, as its value will not be appreciated. On the other hand, intentional search for knowledge is most often associated with the existence of a specific need, which promotes greater openness and faster assimilation of knowledge.

Summing up, unintentional knowledge gathering is reactive in the sense that the company does not search for the knowledge; however, it is able to recognize its value and respond. In contrast, intentional knowledge gathering is proactive, as the company creates the possibility to gather the knowledge and – to a given extent – controls it.

The main characteristics of unintentional and intentional knowledge gathering are presented in Table 1.

The network partners are important in both unintentional and intentional learning. In the first case, network relationships trigger the discovery of new knowledge, or knowledge similar to existing knowledge. In the second case, INVs intentionally use their networks as information channels to help learn about international markets and opportunities.

In his study, Uzzi [1997] found that information exchange in embedded relationships was more tacit and proprietary than the data exchanged in “arm's-length” contracts. The information received through embedded networks was more detailed and rather holistic. Receiving such data through arm's-length ties would be difficult. As the network partners are crucial for knowledge gathering and, therefore, also for the whole internationalization process, taking care of close, embedded, meaningful relationships based on trust seems to be conductive to INVs’ success. However, even close relationships may fail, as the parties may put less effort into the relationship over time [Anderson and Jap, 2005] or even abuse the other party.

Such issues, especially the problems of relationship abuse, which may be defined as violation of rules, norms, and expectations regulating the relationship [cf., Leonidou et al., 2019] are rarely addressed in studies devoted to INVs’ learning. However, some conclusions can be drawn from studies on opportunism and the abuse of power in relations and the reasons for breaking off business relationships.

According to Pfeffer and Salancik [2003], the control of resources that are critical for one party results in power over the partner; on the other hand, it results in the partner's dependence on the former. Knowledge of the foreign market can give a local firm power over its partner; in many cases, cooperation with such a local company is the only gateway to that market [Danik, 2017, p. 152]. As indicated by Inkpen and Beamish [1997], however, the company may acquire knowledge that it lacked at the beginning of the relationship. Knowledge acquisition may shift the balance of power between partners and make the relationship more vulnerable or even enable the company to operate autonomously on the foreign market. The authors argue that if the firm attaches a high value to the acquisition of local knowledge and is able to gather it, instability in the relationship increases unless the local partner is providing other valuable and inimitable resources. Such an approach of the INVs toward their network partners was observed by Sepulveda and Gabrielsson [2013]. Some of the companies they have studied were looking for new relationships and resources after acquiring basic business knowledge from their ties. Infidelity is very common in business relationships. Such violation of the basic ethical norms of the working relationship leads to a great loss of physical, financial, emotional, and other investments in the relationship; moreover, it has negative repercussions on the future prosperity and continuation of the business relationship, as well as involving high opportunity costs [Leonidou et al., 2019].

If the company learns from the business partner with the intention to end the relationship after the partner is not needed anymore and misleads the other party as to the intended use of the knowledge gained from it, such a behavior may be classified as opportunistic, i.e., “self-interest seeking with guile” [Williamson, 1975, p. 255]. The probability of such behavior increases in case of the short-term relationship approach, when the short-run benefits outweigh the intangible and uncertain long-run benefits [Yaqub, 2011], e.g., when the stronger party overuses its power. In long-term relationships, such behavior causes conflicts and reduces trust [Raven and Kruglanski, 1970; Munson et al., 1999]. In such a case, the weaker party may leave the relationship if an exit option exists [Chiambaretto, 2015]. Under this circumstance, the weaker party may feel justified in collecting as much valuable information before parting as possible from the partner in an abusive way.

In their study, Leonidou et al. [2019] argue that infidelity is more likely to take place in international business relationships. Their arguments also fit the abusing of relationships in the knowledge-gathering process. First of all, it is very difficult to monitor the partner's actions because of the geographical and psychological distance. Secondly, the existence of an information asymmetry between the international business partners makes it more difficult to predict and detect such behaviors. Moreover, the high profitability of the foreign market's opportunities may tempt to abuse the partner. The high uncertainty, complexity, and volatility of the foreign environment may also provide fertile ground for breaking relational norms. Finally, the existence of numerous barriers when operating in foreign markets may increase the probability of loosening the relationships between the foreign network partners. To all these arguments, it is worth to add the cultural distance, which may provoke mistrust and conflicts, leading to relationship abuse.

Opportunistic behavior toward business partners may vary from aggressive (i.e., stealing) to passive and almost undetectable (i.e., withholding information) [Gould et al., 2016]. Knowledge acquisition can be opportunistic from the very beginning, i.e., companies may learn from their business partners by taking only their self-interest into consideration and trying to get access to knowledge without revealing their true intentions. Approaches toward network partners, however, are mostly not set in stone and can evolve because of internal or external factors [Kale et al., 2002], from abusing an opportunistic relationship to profiting from a well-wishing relationship, and vice versa. Moreover, companies may behave opportunistically toward some partners and be well-wishing toward other ones.

Due to the exploratory nature of our study aiming to propose associations between constructs that can be tested in the future [Welch et al., 2011] and being a part of a wider research project covering many aspects of INV marketing, we have applied purposive sampling to select the respondents. The population has been chosen based on whether they fulfilled the study's goals [Silverman, 2007, p. 272]. To facilitate theory building, we have aimed to achieve saturation, i.e., “to have a sufficient number of cases to identify recurrent patterns and the contrasting circumstances in which such patterns were evident” [Narooz and Child, 2017, p. 687]. As we wanted to check whether the company's age influences the knowledge-gathering approach, we have studied two older companies (A and B) and two younger ones (C and D). Moreover, we have chosen the INVs differing in the share of exports in the total turnover, starting from >25% (Company B) to >90% (Company A). The sample included four INVs of Polish origin, fulfilling the criteria of Knight et al. [2004]: small- and medium-sized companies, generating at least 25% of total sales abroad, internationalizing on average within 3 years from founding, and engaged in outward internationalization. Taking into consideration Sepulveda and Gabrielsson's [2013] argument that studying business-to-business (B2B) network relationships offers the opportunity to investigate more observable, and longer, relationships than in business-to-consumer companies, we decided to limit our study to B2B firms. In order to increase sample consistency, we investigated medium-tech firms. Three of the companies under study were export start-ups, and one was a multinational trader firm, according to the Madsen [2013] classification. The sample description is presented in Table 2.

We applied the individual expert interviews and the card-based game method [Müthel and Saunders, 2008], and the transcripts were later analyzed with specialized software, implementing the content analysis guidelines [Miles et al., 2014].

To collect data, we conducted semistructured individual interviews, as they are suitable for encouraging well-informed practitioners to give an account of their attitudes, experiences, knowledge, and perceptions of work practices and processes [Rowley et al., 2012]; therefore, they are perceived to be one of the most powerful tools for exploring topics in depth and gaining an understanding of different behaviors (Fontana and Frey, 2000). Expert interviews are perceived to have significant advantages over other methods of data collection [Libakova and Sertakova, 2015]. As the respondents are highly qualified, it is not necessary to use additional screening and clarifying questions aimed at revealing true trends, and the obtained data are very reliable [Dorussen et al., 2005]. In addition, we have talked to the company founders or their families (three firms) and in one case – to a close collaborator of the company founder, who has been with the company from its start. This enabled to talk about processes and relationships that evolved from the firms’ beginnings.

Aside from its advantages, such as two-way communication allowing the interviewees to ask questions, the freedom to express the views of respondents, and the possibility to create an atmosphere of trust to allow the respondents to talk about sensitive issues, this method of collecting data also has its shortcomings. It can only provide indirect information that is filtered through the views of the interviewees, and it cannot guarantee honesty. Moreover, the researcher's presence may bias the interviewees. Not all the respondents may be equally articulate and perceptive, and the information may not be collected in a natural field setting [Creswell, 2014]. It is also difficult to compare the results of interviews because each of them is unique. For the sake of avoiding most of the above-mentioned shortcomings, as well as to best capture the views and experiences of different representatives of the same firm, we decided to triangulate the data and to interview two respondents from each company. One of the respondents was the owner, chief executive officer (CEO), or Sales Director; the second one was a person responsible for marketing (marketing specialist) or sales (depending on the firm's organizational structure). The owners and CEOs were asked additional questions regarding their companies’ origins and beginnings. The interview guide included mostly open questions; however, some closed questions regarding financial results and the company's marketing strategies were also applied. One part of the interview was a card game (for the discussion of the card game method applied in this research project, see: Kowalik and Danik [2019]).

The interviews were conducted between December 2016 and April 2017 by two interviewers experienced in conducting semistructured interviews and who were experts on the topic of the study. They asked open-ended questions and then reworded and reordered them, if necessary. The interviews lasted for a duration ranging from 30 minutes (interviews with sales/marketing staff) to more than an hour (interviews with CEOs). The interview with the Vice President of Company A was conducted in two parts. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. As a result, 105 pages of transcript were obtained (Times New Roman, 12-point font, single-line spacing). In one case, some financial data were provided by the respondent after the interview via e-mail.

The interviews were analyzed using the computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) MAXQDA. Quantitative content analysis was used to analyze the obtained transcripts. The first step of the analysis was coding the data, which is perceived to be the most crucial step in the process because it involves ongoing interpretation and examination of textual data from different perspectives [Sinkovics et al., 2008]. We began with a priori categorization, creating categories based on the literature. We applied a deductive approach to coding. The data were coded by two independent coders experienced in the field of international marketing. To evaluate the importance of categories and subcategories, the frequency of their occurrence (citations) was calculated, and later, an intercoder consistency matrix was prepared, showing the discrepancies among coders and helping to define categories more precisely [Auern-Srnka and Koeszegi, 2007; Danik and Kowalik, 2013]. This procedure allowed us to conduct investigator triangulation. After the first round of coding, the a posteriori categorization was based on the collected data set. Some additional codes were assigned to transcripts to give a broader view of the experiences and perceptions of the interviewees. Finally, 17 superior categories, representing main topics (e.g., “Learning”), 44 main categories representing questions (e.g., “Learning sources”), and 103 subcategories, corresponding with the smallest coding units (e.g. “Information from network partners”), were obtained.

Furthermore, the frequency of occurrence of specific codes was calculated for each company to evaluate the importance of the categories. This approach is based on the assumption that the repetition of words or expressions reveals centers of interest and the preoccupations of the actors [Thiétart, 2014].

The following analysis refers only to the main category, “Learning”, which consists of the answers to the question: “What information sources are used for foreign expansion?” and, partially, the answers to questions regarding the company's innovations and knowledge infrastructure (the results regarding other categories studied will be presented in subsequent papers).

Because the content analysis of the statements regarding the “Learning” category revealed differences in approaches toward knowledge gathering from network partners, we moved from directed to conventional content analysis [Hsieh and Shannon, 2005] and created one new additional subcategory: “L4 Network knowledge-gathering approach” (as the social and business relationships permeate each other in INV networks, no separate codes have been created for social and business networks). We also added six new lower coding units: “L4.1 Relationship approach”, “L4.1.1 Relationship abusing” (statements referring to opportunistic behaviors or power abuse in knowledge gathering), “L4.1.2 Relationship profiting” (statements referring to profiting from the relationships without abusing the network partner), “L4.2 Intentionality”, “L4.2.1 Unintentional” (statements referring to stumbling across new valuable knowledge by accident, when the company is not aware that it can learn from a given source at the beginning but is able to recognize the value of this knowledge and to process it), and “L4.2.2 Intentional” (statements referring to purposive, planned, and organized knowledge-gathering, when the companies are mindful of what they are looking for and what the value of the knowledge they gather is). The code hierarchy in the category “Learning” is presented in Table 3.

The next step of the study was the code co-occurrence analysis to identify the relationships between the codes. It was conducted with the use of the MAXQDA software, which reveals whether the respondents perceive any relationships between the mentioned topics. This type of analysis has an exploratory character and is applied to investigate whether some concepts are interrelated.

The intentional learning approach is connected to the deliberate search for information of a given type. The marketing specialist from Company C states as follows:

It is very important with the dealers because they should be independent. They know the market best, they know best, what sells best there (…). The example is corn now. We are working on the corn because we have such a client. There will not be the same interest in corn everywhere. And now there is a question, whether we should lose time on this program (…) or better search for something else, that will (work) in other markets…

As the interviews were conducted in Polish, all the quotes were translated verbatim into English by the authors.

Intentional learning can be associated with intentionally using all available opportunities to gather knowledge. For example, Company B's marketing specialist states as follows:

We are watching this market thanks to the distributor network, thanks to talking to clients and as a matter of fact, also to competitors. I saw my boss in such a situation at the trade fair (…) and admired that he is so much oriented on the cooperation with the competitors. Because he was simply talking with the companies from those markets, bigger than we are, simply asking them for advice. And it is a very, very valuable or awesome knowledge. And it is an awesome way to learn something about that market.

A company that gathers knowledge intentionally is eager to invest a lot of time and energy to plan meetings with their network partners, as is Company C, whose Sales Director states as follows:

(…) trade fairs, exhibitions. We invest a lot in being at our industry trade fairs. We are present at the industry trade fairs for years. Sometimes I am laughing, that I am going to live at these trade fairs. As I said, the main industrial trade fairs in a given country – we go there. We are in Russia, we are in Ukraine, we are… we were also in Kazakhstan…

Unintentional learning is an activity that is not planned, wherein companies come across information by accident. The marketing specialist from Company A states as follows:

… (Interviewers question: So there is no regular scanning, looking for opportunities?) I would say, there isn’t absolutely. It works like that that there is a kind of network, an acquaintance arrives and says: “Listen, I’ve heard, that you can… There is a market for it now. There are big margins, you could do this…”.

An important characteristic of these companies is that they are open to new ideas from different network partners. Sometimes, being open to unexpected ideas and implementing them becomes their policy. For example, the Vice President of Company A states:

We are famous in Europe for listening to the construction companies, who say “Listen, I have such a stupid idea.” And the second thing: as soon as possible…, it means 1. We do not close the discussion; 2. If yes, then we introduce a change as soon as possible.

Unintended learning may refer to all types of knowledge needed in the internationalization process. For example, Respondent R1 from Company B, when he talks about the need for introducing long-term planning to meet the Western standards, says:

A Danish guy came and said that he was planning an investment in 3 years. And I remember it after many years! It hit me so hard then.

All of the companies were using their relationships to gather information. Using the relationships to learn is based simply on the willingness to share information among network partners. The President of Company D states:

…in the decisions regarding foreign expansions – information about clients received through recommendations, through ‘word of mouth marketing’, sometimes from competitors, who have not enough capacity.

To be able to take advantage of relationships to gather knowledge, they have to be characterized by trust and mutual well-wishing. The Vice President of Company A expressed the following:

It means, without trust and positive attitude toward the partners, nobody tells me: ‘Listen, according to me it would be awesome if you did it otherwise’. Without trust and such an attitude, nobody spends 15 minutes or 4 hours, giving me advice or suggesting solutions. It starts with a contact, later an attitude develops, and finally, real help is given. Or ‘handing over,’ which works on the principle ‘I will not help you, but go and talk to a given person.’ It is also very important.

The other prerequisite for taking advantage of networks in the learning process seems to be good knowledge about the network partners. The Marketing Specialist in Company C states:

Because the boss knows the growers himself… He has been repairing these machines before, so he got to know them, and he knew the region and the neighborhood. And then from one grower to the other one. It is a ‘closed circle’, so they knew each other well.

Sharing knowledge becomes self-evident in such a situation, as stated by the President of Company B:

If our intermediary (…) has visited a client, he tells us about the competitors. He has a good relationship with the client, so he knows the prices and knows whether we enter or not. He informs us how the offer on the market looks like and we have to… Such a feedback from the partners is normal, isn’t it? In every company (…), I cannot imagine to do it otherwise (On the B2B market - I stress).

The difference between relationship profiting and relationship abusing is that companies who abuse relationships act on self-interested, sometimes even opportunistic, basis, including the incomplete or distorted disclosure of information, especially the “calculated efforts to mislead, distort, disguise, obfuscate, or otherwise confuse” [Williamson, 1985, p. 47]. A good example of relationship abuse is by Company A, whose Vice President attached great importance to trust and kindness, as mentioned above; however, when referring to the other network partners, stated as follows:

No, I will not build a company with well-wishing, but with the knowledge – yes;

Company B also gathered knowledge in a rather sneaky way. Its President stated:

In the case of large companies, it is also somehow easy to gather this information. It's enough to join a mailing list. They inform everybody.

The relationship-abusing practices were mostly mentioned by the oldest company in our sample (Company A), having a very strong market position and being able to afford abusing the partner after having collected all the necessary knowledge from him.

Analysis of the relationships among the codes that referred to the network knowledge-gathering approach revealed that they are strongly interconnected. Intentional and unintentional learning modes from network partners overlap. The units “Relationship approach” and “Intentionality” are also connected, with most links observed between “Relationship profiting” and “Unintentional” approaches (n=19). There were only two links revealed in “Unintentional relationship abusing” (Table 4).

Although the study presented above has reached its goals, it has some unavoidable limitations. First of all, we are not able to generalize its results due to purposive sampling, which was necessary in our case. Second, the study refers only to Polish companies. The results are therefore limited to this particular country's context, and caution should be exercised in trying to draw generalizations to be applied to other countries. Moreover, the companies we studied were rather “mature” INVs. The results obtained at earlier stages of the internationalization process could be different. Unfortunately, conducting studies on such INVs is extremely difficult, as they cannot easily be tracked by researchers. Nevertheless, in future studies, the results should be validated using younger INVs and INVs from other countries, and necessary comparisons should be made.

We also cannot exclude the fact that the companies under study were more willing to talk about their conciliatory and intentional approaches to network knowledge gathering than they were on talking about relationship abuse (only two companies under study indicated such). Therefore, the numbers representing relationship abuse may be underestimated. Future studies should take into consideration not only the presence of self-interested behavior but also its triggers and the measures taken to prevent it.

Further research should be aimed at generating longitudinal data to capture the dynamics of the network knowledge-gathering processes. A large-scale quantitative study would help to determine the extent to which the observed approaches are common among INVs. As some problems discussed in the study are of sensitive nature (opportunistic behavior), acute attention should be paid when formulating the questions. An interesting subject of future studies could also be the determinants of unplanned learning processes, which are still unexplored.