In multi-unit organizations, such as multinational corporations (MNCs), knowledge developed in one business unit can greatly benefit the performance of another. However, employees and managers compete with others within intraorganizational competitive domains for resources, which may affect the willingness to share knowledge. We conceptualize the multi-unit organization as having multiple competitive domains depending on the main source for resource endowments for the knowledge-sharing actors. Our study draws on data from two surveys done in a global division of an MNC, comprising data from 342 individuals nested in 68 different units, across 24 countries. Our results show that social integration among individuals in different competitive domains boosts knowledge transfer between units, while social integration between individuals within the same competitive domain hampers knowledge transfer. These findings suggest that there is a different and darker side to social integration in multi-unit organizations than the previously established positive side leading to increased knowledge transfer. Our findings show that the willingness to share knowledge also depends on the internal competition for resources between the knowledge-sharing actors.

Studies on corporate social performance advocate that interrelated yet conflicting goals, such as sustainability and profitability, give rise to specific dynamics and inherent tensions, and call for more research to investigate how the duality of goals is managed by specific individuals in organizations. Through a micro-foundational view of ambidexterity for corporate social performance, and by relying on a qualitative data analysis of 41 interviews with sustainability managers and their immediate stakeholders, both internal and external to their organization boundaries, we developed a multilevel model of sustainability managers' responses to conflicting goals. We discovered how sustainability managers enacted internal and external, long term and short term brokering behaviors, enabled by their individual values, multidisciplinary knowledge, and relational abilities and skills, although constrained by their organizational and institutional contexts. By taking into account simultaneously contextual forces and individual cognitive characteristics, we thus advance our understanding of sustainability managers’ behaviors towards ambidexterity for corporate social responsibility and of microfoundations for ambidexterity.