Cross-border knowledge sharing happens when it is easy, visible, and worthwhile.

Knowledge is often described as the lifeblood of multinational enterprises. The ability to share expertise, experiences and ideas across borders helps organizations innovate, learn and compete globally. Yet knowledge does not move as freely as many companies would hope.

Research by Dr Danni Ma from City University of Macau and Dr Anthony Fee from the University of Technology Sydney suggests that the answer lies not only in organizational culture or corporate systems, but in the everyday situations employees encounter when deciding whether sharing knowledge is worth the effort. Based on interviews with Chinese employees working in foreign multinational consulting firms, the study reveals that cross-border knowledge sharing is less a routine organizational activity than a series of carefully considered decisions.

“Employees do not simply decide whether to share knowledge. They decide whether sharing is worth it.”

Knowledge sharing is not only collaboration, it is also a personal calculation

Knowledge sharing is often portrayed as a collaborative act that benefits the organization as a whole. The study paints a more nuanced picture.

Employees certainly recognize the organizational value of sharing expertise across subsidiaries. However, before deciding whether to respond to a request, they also assess how sharing may affect their own professional standing. Questions about reputation, career development, performance evaluations and future opportunities often feature prominently in their thinking.

In many cases, employees are weighing up two sets of interests simultaneously: the interests of the organization and their own individual interests. While both matter, personal considerations frequently carry greater weight. Some participants viewed knowledge sharing as a way to build visibility, expand professional networks and create future opportunities. Others worried that sharing valuable expertise could reduce their competitive advantage or allow others to benefit from work they had invested significant time in developing.

“Knowledge sharing is often portrayed as collaboration. In practice, it is also competition.”

Rather than being an automatic expression of organizational commitment, knowledge sharing emerges as a strategic judgement shaped by how employees evaluate the potential gains and risks associated with each situation.

The process matters as much as the outcome

A particularly important finding is that employees care not only about what knowledge sharing achieves, but also about how it happens.

Much of the existing discussion around knowledge sharing focuses on outcomes: whether knowledge improves performance, generates innovation or helps solve problems. This study shows that employees also evaluate the sharing process itself. They consider how difficult the exchange will be, how much time it will require, whether communication barriers will create misunderstandings, and whether their contribution will be recognized by managers and colleagues.

Employees described cross-border knowledge sharing as potentially time-consuming and demanding. Language differences, cultural distance, time zones and the complexity of tacit knowledge can all increase the effort required. When the process is perceived as burdensome, employees become less willing to participate, regardless of the potential organizational benefits.

“When knowledge sharing becomes invisible, its value often becomes invisible too.”

The study introduces the idea of the performative nature of knowledge sharing. Employees are more likely to engage when their contributions are visible, acknowledged and connected to meaningful rewards. In contrast, when sharing takes place behind the scenes and receives little recognition, motivation tends to decline.

Small contextual factors can shape global knowledge flows

The research also challenges the assumption that broad organizational culture alone determines whether knowledge is shared.

Instead, employees appear highly sensitive to micro-contextual conditions — the specific circumstances surrounding each request. A request may involve the same knowledge, but employees respond differently depending on who asks, why they ask, and how the request is communicated.

Formal project-based requests often carry legitimacy and organizational importance. Employees can clearly see how their contribution relates to project outcomes, performance expectations and organizational objectives. Informal requests, particularly from unfamiliar colleagues in distant subsidiaries, are often viewed more cautiously because the benefits are less clear and the risks more uncertain.

“Who asks for knowledge can matter as much as the knowledge being asked for.”

Relationships therefore matter. Trust, familiarity and managerial endorsement all influence how employees interpret the value and risk of participating in cross-border knowledge sharing.

Why does this matter?

Many multinational enterprises invest heavily in systems designed to encourage knowledge sharing. Yet encouraging employees to share is only part of the challenge.

The findings suggest that organizations can strengthen global knowledge flows by creating conditions that make sharing easier, more visible and more rewarding. This includes reducing communication barriers, recognizing contributions, creating clearer collaboration mechanisms and strengthening interpersonal connections across subsidiaries.

“Knowledge does not flow because organizations want it to. It flows when employees believe it is worth sharing.”

Ultimately, the study demonstrates that knowledge sharing is not simply a matter of organizational design. It is a human decision shaped by everyday experiences, relationships and perceptions. Understanding these micro-contextual conditions offers a richer explanation of why knowledge moves across borders in some situations but not in others.