Evaluation of Knowledge Transfer Practices from a Leibniz Perspective

In recent years, there has been a growing number of subspecialties within the context of business management, which have begun to talk seriously about a notion of religious points of view in a business context. In this paper we unpack a view from Gottfried Leibniz (1646 – 1716) and to a lesser extent Kant (1724- 1804) and Hegel (1770-1831) in relation to this perspective with a view to interpret the complexity and the role of religion in this arena. Leibniz famously argued that the universe as it currently exists, has to be “the best of all possible worlds,” since an omniscient creator would know all possibilities, and, therefore select the best available options for a starting and ending point. We argue that, although dichotically opposed to the many contemporary empirical attitudes, this perspective still has an inherent and modern-day stance, representative to both business theory and decision making via knowledge transfer mechanisms. Thus, we examine why business start-ups evolve and what effect a religious element has on the central caveat for businesses wishing to achieve success and maintain competitive advantage options, perspectives and scenarios. In this regards, we look at a significant amount of literature, in a bid to understand both the problematic nature surrounding the mechanics used to establish meaningful baselines from the many perspectives. The paper then summarises these theoretical baselines into segmented contexts for discussion.

To make this point of view effective, the objective of the paper seeks to define multifaceted knowledge transfer experiences as a single perspective drawing from a Leibniz view of conformist relationship development within a reality, and how this position affects key decisions within new business start-ups. Similarly, The development of philosophical thought from Kant (1724Kant ( -1804 and Hegel (1770-1831) serves as a backdrop to these definitions. To achieve objectivity, we will analyse underpinning theories around business startups as experience, creative marketing, business development and success in the context of competitive advantage (Hussain, Ajmal, Khan, & Saber, 2015;Mohanbir Sawhney, 2006;Popescu, 2013;Sun & Yi-Ju, 2014).

Business based Knowledge overview
In his theory of knowledge, Kant divided reality into two types: phenomena and noumena. We experience phenomena only by the senses in the things we see, hear, taste, touch, etc. The noumena, or the reality behind appearances, the thing-in-itself, can never be known by the senses, and hence cannot be known at all. Noumena, may refer to God or the existence of the soul.
Thus, the significance of duality in establishing an entirety of the universality could be interpreted as somewhat remiss from a business perspective. In this case, misunderstanding the problem of heteronomy (Alam Choudhury & McNutt, 2010;Masudul Alam Choudhury, 2016) leads to the difficulty from current business management literature in segregating mind and matter from a priori and a posterior reasoning.
We may say that the position of knowledge in relation to a religion is very important, since throughout its extended route through any business process, it is the experience or interpretation of transfer parameters (Alekseeva, Mishlanova, & Sgem, 2014;Koh & Gunasekaran, 2006;Pedrycz, Russo, & Succi, 2012) which often adopt the focus for prioritised importance. Nonetheless, contemporary literature synthesis indicates that there is still a theoretical disjunction as to the exact role of religion within this process. Further, if and why it (religion) is specifically linked to the many forms of perceived business success (Dai, 2012;Kessler, Pachucki, Stummer, Mair, & Binder, 2015;Lock, 2010;Tervonen & Haapasalo, 2012) and the role it plays within any other process in which it exists as an element. Moreover, in its practical usage, generalist interpretation ~ of knowledge ~ does not automatically indicate full significance of the knowledge content nor its transfer or absorptive capability. Certainly, we can argue that this may be as a result of the lack of fundamental understanding of knowledge (Martelo-Landroguez & Juan-Gabriel, 2014;Mir, 2013;Pritchard, 2010). Such that, circumstances of knowledge and the religious scenario where it exists as a reality, may be dynamically linked and related to business success, but will inevitably be from two very distinctly different phenomena, almost certainly, outwith leadership control or organisational structure.
On the one hand, propositional clarification regarding justified beliefs, which would interact with a transfer process or depend on anything else, for example experience, would, for justification, require knowledge related to transfer success. Additionally, any attempt to clarify the problem simply by stating that interpretation arises from the impossibility of a theocratic matter interrelationship seems counterintuitive. What we can say is that reason may be subjected to the problem of heteronomy and rests with interpretation alone. An interpretive religious perspective on the other hand (Rasmussen, 2015;Reimer-Kirkham, Pesut, Sawatzky, Cochrane, & Redmond, 2012;Shaw & Thomson, 2013;Vasconcelos, 2013) encounters a dichotomous revelation and reason phenomena and thus, become competing premises of understanding reality. Whilst this is arguably the basis for conceptual misunderstanding, it fails to be specific in the definition of epistemological reasoning in the context of experiential exchanges from a business perspective (LeVeness & Primeaux, 2004;McDermott & Pietrobelli, 2017;Ziakas & Boukas, 2014). Thus, interpretive success is more likely if the sender and receiver of knowledge are internal to the same experiential boundary or share a superordinate identity. Religious experience (Cassaniti & Luhrmann, 2014;Fedor, 2012;Fernandes, 2015), in this view, has clear cogency of any proposal, epistemically legitimate or not, and this is fundamental in defining any knowledge to be transferred or exchanged. Thus, interpretation of success, in all regards, regards inferential epistemic dependence (Aslesen & Harirchi, 2015;Goldberg, 2013;Newell, 2015;Soames, 2014;Wobcke, 1995) as a structured causal relationship, in that, would infer that knowledge has no dependence on the source or recipient for anything. A view from Bonhoeffer (1931) (Holder, 2009;Mawson, 2014;Weaver, 2004) expands on Kant's theory of knowledge and its connection with Theism (Abrams, 2015;Masudul Alam Choudhury, 2006;M. A. Choudhury & Bhatti, 2016). Thus, critical consciousness, morality and judgment or religious belief become fundamental to the construction of a truth or knowledge. Whereby, knowledge of experience (Lacy & Cash, 2008;Mir, 2013;Turner, 2014;Verbin, 2000) comes to man who is incapable of understanding the nature of his knowledge, and therefore knowledge of Deity has to be transferred or exchanged. Therefore, driven by the belief that presupposed decisions are embedded in the experiential process, as such, business practitioners may attach value to invalidated external knowledge (religion) rather than validated internal knowledge of a business process.
In this regards, it is easy to interpret successful knowledge transfer and knowledge-sharing practices critically depend on knowledge assets, the capability of communication channels, and the absorptive capacity of the knowledge recipients. From a social constructionist perspective (Hammond, 1998;Holt & Mueller, 2011;Kirschner, 2010;Phillips, 1991), it is clear why knowledge may be socially produced and defined through its social usage and linked to a religious perspective. Thus, in doing so, arguments take on meaning within the context of ongoing knowledge transfer practices and interactions from the practitioners point of view. Wherein, structures, practices, and routines accumulate within and across organisations and observe facets and interactive conduits needed for successful knowledge transfer.
However, a commonality perpetuates these dyadic epistemological positions, since, both positions assume that knowledge is embedded in, and determined by, disembodied structures that influence people's decision making ~ Leader ~. The implication here is that knowledge comes with its own descriptive communication ciphers, and thus enable the receiver to interpret wholly and unproblematically, as intended by the transferor [REF]. This being the case, there is an identifiable disunion in many approaches to success validation, as to where the locus of attention for knowledge transfer success should be {REF].
Clearly, we can appreciate that knowledge is created and initiated at the organisational level, conversely, knowledge creation is initiated and knowledge transfer is conducted at the individual level. What is suggested represents an irresolvable position, in that, there would never be an acceptable or corroborated state from which to measure knowledge transfer success from, as such, underlines much of the problems associated with the linking of knowledge transfer to business success and competitive advantage [REF]. Moreover, this dichotic state is fundamental in any approach since it is actually an inductive argument, in that, it presupposes a conclusion will be formulated from inferences which do not actually support a conclusion. Constituent parts such as experience and perception do not underpin any attribute of knowledge in this sense, but simply exist as an asset having value to the actors in its non-component form Nonetheless, it is clear that the knowledge sender and the knowledge receiver, emphasises the importance of effective mechanisms, but do not require laconically descriptive competencies to render the transfer effective and/or successful. This clear symmetry in the relationship of individuals motivational attributes, problematically affecting the knowledge transfer mechanism is clearly still an ongoing issue, without specific resolve, even after many years of associated study. Subsequently, many who follow a similar epistemological direction, offer no tangible contrary objectives to any subjective descriptions. In that, any described propositional distinction, whose predicate concept is contained in its subject concept; which in the case of knowledge transfer would no doubt incorporate elements of understanding and experience, is deduced from an analytic proposition REF.
Thus, a proposition whose predicate concept is contained in its subject concept, is therefore an assumption from the actors involved in the transfer process REF. From the perspective of leadership interaction or significance, would indicate that within the normal sequence of events for knowledge transfer in a business or organisational environment, there is no need to provide any strong support for justification of the scenario as being empirically sound. This assumption, underlines the fact that the sender and the receiver of the knowledge have no regard as to the truth of the proposition of the leadership intention around process ownership. Whereby, association of an analytic a posteriori leads propositional endeavour to an understanding of how one can obtain knowledge of analytic proposition a priori. -REF-This, leadership interaction at this juncture of a process infers the understanding of the knowledge experience and the assumption of synthetic a posteriori propositions at all times, therefore, leaves us with only the question of how the knowledge of a synthetic a priori proposition would be possible -REF-.
Drawing from Leibniz conformist relationship development within a reality, we can see that this position from a business or organisational success perspective exists as a fundamental assumption around the value adopted from a transfer scenario and not the knowledge content. Wherein, since without a substantive appreciation as to the significance or importance of the knowledge and knowledge experience, no inference of useful knowledge transfer could be observed (REF]. Thus, any transfer process would simply be recorded or measured within a relative frame of reference imposed by a leader. Such that, interactive approaches to transfer success, in which strategic business knowledge relates to a reality framework for both the participants of the transfer process and the process owners, frames interpretation as sub systems of interactive knowledge experiences. There is then the possibility to 'fine tune' the predict, inasmuch as, linking of the experiential reality frameworks to knowledge transfer processes form discernible success criteria, which, in themselves form recognisable sub communities of good practices [Lave and wenger?]. Knowledge transfer from a business success perspective for example, may therefore be utilised as a valuable condition of organisational competence, which it can directly relate to key success criteria. Consequently, businesses or organisations will adopt an objective in capturing this knowledge process and turning it into a definitive instrument for success, based on the belief that leadership trajectory imposes the best and most efficient use of the mechanisms at work [REF]. Knowledge transfer experiences factors in an organisational context are well examined within the background of defined processes by which one type of organisation learns or is affected by the experience or development of another. Authors in the field of knowledge transfer experiences (Gershon, 2003;Kirby, 2004;Morgan & Ammentorp, 1993) explain that because many factors of process are dependant on interaction the effectiveness and efficiency, or non efficiency, of the factors of interaction require a mechanism to support it. It is clear why this would be advantageous since may authors consistently agree that there are benefits to any organisation who successfully manage knowledge transfer experiences and learning (Vu, Napier, & Hoang, 2013;Zaleski, 2011), and these are identified and discussed by (Koc, 2007;Laforet & Tann, 2006;Pretorius, Millard, & Kruger, 2006) around the incumbents to do with knowledge transfer experiences exchange processes. More recently, (Ampantzi, Psyllou, Diagkou, & Glykas, 2013;Baporikar, 2013;Bouncken & Kraus, 2013;Jernström, Karvonen, Kässi, Kraslawski, & Hallikas, 2017) defines this further, explaining and acknowledging the usefulness of successful knowledge transfer experiences factors and exchanges and the substantial importance and interaction of organisational learning, social practices and management structures to the evolution and exchange of innovation between organisations. Moreover, experts such as (Marzo & Scarpino, 2016;Saini, 2015;Wynarczyk, 2013) confirm that competitive success is seen as dependent on the business ability to activate all of these different kinds of innovative thinking and not focus on a single decision or innovation type. However, these hypotheses only explore the context of an organisation caveat and do not address or contribute to the understanding and interpretation of these factors of interaction and knowledge transfer exchange mechanisms to and from social or personal perspective (Alexander, 1964;Martelo-Landroguez & Juan-Gabriel, 2014;Nonaka & Teece, 2001;Saini, 2015;Zaleski, 2011). Moreover, they fail to explore the intrinsic parts of the mechanism in any detail and subsequently fail to establish the broader implications of any psychological associations or direct relationships attached to the factors of direct business success.
According to the following authors (Alexander, 1964;Marcati, Guido, & Peluso, 2008;Wilson & Stokes, 2005) some aspects of knowledge transfer experiences factors theory is rooted in psychology. Furthermore, these authors highlighted the substantial difficulties surrounding the definition of knowledge transfer experiences factors and interpretation of this phenomenon (Vu et al., 2013). To elaborate these difficulties various literatures have examined and explained a variety of aspects on how to manage and understand innovation and how to identify and examine the social motivational aspects. Most of this work is based on the conceptual differences and interactions between tacit and explicit knowledge within innovation (Bachmaier, 2015;Mooradian, 2005;Muñoz, Mosey, & Binks, 2015;Segawa & Ikawa, 2012).

Innovation and knowledge at start-up
The dissimilarity between tacit and explicit thinking within innovation is discussed in some detail by (De Saá-Pérez, Díaz-Díaz, & Ballesteros-Rodríguez, 2012; Filieri & Alguezaui, 2012). Whereby, the various aspects of how to manage both the innovation creation process and the social aspects of subsequent interactions needed to make the innovation successful are examined. This re iterated by (Davenport & Bibby, 1999;Nonaka & Teece, 2001) who examine and discuss the usefulness of the innovation process and suggest that psychological factors may play and important part of the motivational process. However, authors such as (Davenport & Bibby, 1999;Nonaka & Teece, 2001) underline the difficulties related to the usage of conventional empirical research in the development of innovative elements that can be deemed useful as a start-up context. These difficulties are also addressed and described by (Davenport & Bibby, 1999;Nonaka & Teece, 2001), as important in both an individual and group context. These definitions and explanations highlight the difficulty required in defining what the understanding of innovation is from a number of differing contexts and what is psychologically significant about the underlying phenomenal concepts in relation to a business start-up. Regardless of this, literature does not identify a perspective position of the definition or what role specific psychological elements may play in the social interactions needed to start a new business. Authors such as ; (Bullard, Emond, Graham, Ho, & Holroyd, 2007;Copus, Skuras, & Tsegenidi, 2008) suggests that the quality of the innovation from the factors of interaction and recipients' perception is 'important', thus, the social identity of the innovation to be utilised is equated as having value and therefore an evaluation of the usefulness of the Innovation is supposed by each.
The significance of this process within innovation perception, or what identity the innovation is given before it is utilised, is discussed by (Linke & Zerfass, 2011;McGrath, 2009;Mowles, van der Gaag, & Fox, 2010) who recognise that many researchers have stressed the significance of reasoning and moral choice. Thus, underpin the consequence of the decision making process in defining the significance of the perceived innovation, and therefore affecting how the interaction of the mechanism influences the factors of interaction .For this study, without this conceptual philosophical understanding of innovation, definition of the success of the factors of interaction mechanism cannot be established (Manoela & Cecilia, 2013;Taneja & Mundra, 2011). Moreover, how the relationship to business success may increase and decrease as interpretation moves from one understanding or viewpoint of innovation, and the another.
Modern scholars such as (Taneja & Mundra, 2011;Turnbull & Eickhoff, 2011) considers facets of culture to contribute to the knowledge transfer experiences process. Such that, any culture must have a strong set of core values and norms that will encourage the active participation of any group member and thus reciprocate knowledge transfer experiences factors within the group. Thinking about the usefulness of knowledge transfer experiences from this cultural perspective (Aydin, 2012;Faulkner & Kent, 2001) explains that elements of culture , by its nature, is embedded into the very fabric of society and culture and therefore creative and creative experiences derive from it. In discussing elements of culture in an organisational context , contemporary authors such as (Culkin, 2016;Czarniewski, 2016;Enjolras, Camargo, & Schmitt, 2016) explain that 'culture experiences' form part of our fundamental education and often support the process for development personal development of innovation gathering and understanding. Therefore, suggesting that interpretation of elements of culture and culture which focus on interpretive styles of analysis relating to knowledge transfer experiences factors must be used to develop an understanding of the experience which people are part of. From this perspective (Aydin, 2012;Faulkner & Kent, 2001) develop and examine the nature of innovative truth, as it applies to elements of culture and defines this interaction as a clear reflection of the importance of understanding innovation from a personal perspective before it is utilised or exchanged. For example, (Gbadamosi, 2015) focuses on the point that people from ethnic minority backgrounds are disadvantaged in the pursuit of careers, specifically due to the misinterpretation of the innovation required to be successful in a particular field. Whereby, this may be partly due to the cultural differences in the interpretation of innovation factors available to them and which are identified as a success (Aydin, 2012;Faulkner & Kent, 2001).
Authors such as (Koc, 2007;Marcati et al., 2008;Massa & Testa, 2008) explain that cultural and innovation interactions are often seen as significant, as close relationships and good reputations will increase potential for successful knowledge transfer experiences factors. Further, these authors try to identify different kinds of innovation and cultural experiences and practices which are generally accepted as though they are universal and applicable to all societies and cultures. Other authors identify key aspects which need to be considered. (Chaudhry & Crick, 2004) for example looked at the restaurant sector to identify which strategic element of culture could help the development of the business. Although they did identify the need for continual monitoring of the new business , they did not identify any parts of the start-up which merited specific attention.

Leibniz and Knowledge transfer
Relating back to the analogy of Leibniz year, we can see that knowledge of a synthetic a priori proposition is exceedingly difficult scenario to interpret at any level, since it is impossible to determine which synthetic a priori propositions are true -REF-. In which case, metaphysics as a discipline, to interpret fundamental truths for knowledge transfer, would be impossible. Moreover, one could also see the interaction from which positivists draw a distinction, in that, analytic proposition would infer a proposition whose truth depends solely on the meaning of its terms in this case the context of the knowledge inference. Similarly, analytic proposition, could suggest a proposition that is true or false by simple definition or could simply mean a proposition that is made true/false, entirely by conventions of language and syntax.
However, some current theories that do share a common hybridised approach, and in most instances, try to use nominal generalisation, but end up tending to require more variable interpretation than any offering of definition -REF-. For example, Nonaka's yearexplicit and tacit categorisation of knowledge has similarity with Boisot's [Year] reference to codified and uncodified knowledge. However, both models suffer the same limitations, in that codified and uncodified are but two discrete unrelated categories of knowledge.
The following model, The Significance Model, is based on a reality framework, drawn from Leibniz, and incorporates key elements of contemporary theory -REF-. Thus, indicates the complex integration of knowledge justification and validation needed to accumulate to a commonality of significance, in this case competitive advantage [REF].

Concluding Thoughts
In this paper we successfully argued that there are other, less than contemporary approaches to examination of business theory and signifies a shift away from simple event or sequenced accounts of transfer. This is a view which may give insight to knowledge transfer elements, which would be otherwise difficult to see or examine.
Contemporary literature assumes a projected biased assumption, since, although it redirects analysis towards relationally constructed nature of knowledge through the lens of interpretation, it does not go beyond fundamental process accounts of interpretation of the transfer mechanisms. It is clear from literature the entrepreneurs seek and edge to competitive rivals and this comes as a combination of capability and knowledge transfer experiences. It was also clear that transfer experiences played a significant role in helping the entrepreneur achieve these desires. Some of the main features of knowledge transfer experiences were highlighted as being important and when examined were clearly significant in many different ways to the participants.
Nonetheless, for the authors, it was ultimately difficult to pinpoint which specific element of knowledge transfer experiences is responsible for a specific business attitude. It is clear also that knowledge understanding is an important factor in knowledge transfer mechanisms, and therefore definitive interpretation is vital to the understanding of knowledge transfer effectiveness and success. Specifically, the inference of causal ambiguity of the knowledge itself becomes primarily important, since inability to map relationships between a capability and performance outcome, widely regarded as a commonality, has a direct effect on consequential successful or unsuccessful transfer.
Few elements of the conceptual literature identifies any perspective or definition of what role relationship roles play in cognitive understanding of knowledge, only that they may exist to interfere with the transfer of knowledge at some obscure point. Most theoretical assumptions adopt this myopic biased view regarding actors interaction surrounding knowledge interpretation, as a consequence, performance differences between groups or businesses are often examined by simply using prescriptive asymmetries linked to knowledge transfer success, but without definition of success.
This assumption neglects the interactions of non positivist positions of the actors within the socially complex knowledge transfer process. Thus, internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity would be obviously stated as identifiable distinctions that should cohere meaningfully, as this would be fundamental in defining clarity within the hierarchical construct of the data, and certainly in relation to this particularly large and complex phenomena. This localised philosophy ultimately leads to an understanding, in which the myopic/dichotic analysis is ostensibly to individualise dualism.
To emphasise this point we can see these epistemologies as dualism and duality, that form an underpinning discourse of neo functionalism, however this view is clearly inconsistent with, and does not give acknowledgement to, any ideological perspectives related to knowledge or knowledge transfer. As a result, knowledge as an experience is considered as having attributed intrinsic functions of, difficult or non-difficult, in its association with knowledge transfer, business success and competitive advantage. This supposition is underlined in work around knowledge creation as a social activity process, and continue that knowledge is created through the dynamic interactions among individuals and/or between individuals and their environments but without conclusive definition of any relationship attributes. The problem with this literature position is that the consideration of ontological and associated epistemological relevance of a deific unanimity, which is at the core of some ideological positions is not coherently represented, is missing from any theorem presented thus far in any literature and is remiss from any acknowledged interaction theory. Furthermore, this position is ignorant of other ontological perspectives, which may not be interceded by democratically ambivalent, occidental philosophies, politics and law and may be quite the reverse.
Additionally, many observations relating to knowledge transfer management practices are intended to validate the start and end points of the knowledge transfer processes, but fail to define the success of the whole process based on the core value or principals of business success and competitive advantage. Thus, at times the analysis within the literature although complex and highly nuanced, is poorly demarcated and at times slanting towards realism, in that, almost every declarative statement is either true or false, regardless of whether this can be unequivocally substantiated from a verifiable perspective.
This overall view is developed in analytical terms in most literature and discriminated with scientific heritages regarding positivism and rationalism, however the intransigent ability of this theoretical view is deliberately focused and biased to explain both truth and falsehood with a scientific secular underpinning. Even though religious, and cultural partialities were mentioned as important factors within the knowledge transfer process, the resultant intransient social interactions at various levels of (all) knowledge communities were not explicitly specified as having any ability to significantly influence knowledge transfer by any increase or decrease in their respective social capital. This seems to be a fundamental omission from most current theory direction, as any heterarchical group, may itself contain fundamental constituent elements that would inevitably be central in establishing a productive starting point for any knowledge based framework, as it would involve both group base and personal experience.
Similarly, if knowledge is constructed within understood social contexts, that is, acknowledging that the world exists, epistemologically, this constructivism must be based on a wholly subjectivist position. Thus, from this literature view, there would only be a single view relating to experiences in the world, hence, this solipsistic literature position is also too truncated to be critically analytical in observing knowledge transfer linked to business success and competitive advantage. Therefore, for this paper, we can conclude that whilst knowledge transfer experiences remains important for a business, particularly around start-up capability, the actual verifiable template to support this as a conduit to success and competitive advantage remains elusive.