The Effect of Social Network Centrality on Knowledge Sharing

Many companies have been carrying out various knowledge management attempts, hoping that employees share their knowledge voluntary with other members and make synergy. From this point of view, many previous studies have explored the factors that affect individuals’ intention to share knowledge. In this study, we tried to discover the factors affecting from the roles and positions of individuals within the social network. To identify the roles and positions, we used three centrality measures (degree/closeness/betweenness) that can be calculated using Social Network Analysis (SNA). The research findings showed that the network roles and positions of individuals significantly affect their knowledge sharing intentions within and outside the teams. Since the high degree centrality provides a member with the position as a leader or a hub, one tries to actively participate in knowledge sharing within and outside the team in order to maintain the network position. A member who can quickly interact with many other members within a team (high closeness centrality) is more interested in knowledge sharing within the team than knowledge sharing outside the team. Since betweenness centrality offers a member various resources outside the team, a member who has high betweenness centrality plays a crucial role in disseminating and regulating knowledge among multiple teams. The members who play important roles in the network want to engage in knowledge sharing activities more actively than other members to maintain the benefits they can have in the network.

[1]  Sridhar P. Nerur,et al.  An exploratory study on the roles of network structure and knowledge processing orientation in work unit knowledge management , 2007, DATB.

[2]  Volker Wulf,et al.  IT to support knowledge sharing in communities, towards a social capital analysis , 2006, J. Inf. Technol..

[3]  Barry D. Davidson,et al.  Social networks, communication styles, and learning performance in a CSCL community , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[4]  Ray Reagans,et al.  Bridging the Knowledge Gap: The Influence of Strong Ties, Network Cohesion, and Network Range on the Transfer of Knowledge Between Organizational Units , 2012 .

[5]  Ying Ding,et al.  Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis , 2009 .

[6]  Eric T. G. Wang,et al.  Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories , 2006, Decis. Support Syst..

[7]  Sevgi Zeynep Dogan,et al.  Assessing coordination performance based on centrality in an e-mail communication network , 2015 .

[8]  Michael J. Gallivan,et al.  Does Information Technology Training Really Matter? A Social Information Processing Analysis of Coworkers' Influence on IT Usage in the Workplace , 2005, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[9]  Atreyi Kankanhalli,et al.  Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories: An Empirical Investigation , 2005, MIS Q..

[10]  A. Toni,et al.  The key roles in the informal organization: A network analysis perspective , 2010 .

[11]  Sangmi Chai,et al.  A socio-technical approach to knowledge contribution behavior: An empirical investigation of social networking sites users , 2012, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[12]  Young Min Kim,et al.  Longitudinal analysis of online community dynamics , 2015, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[13]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Factors, and Organizational Climate , 2005, MIS Q..

[14]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[15]  Mohamed A. Youssef,et al.  A structural equation model for knowledge sharing behavior in an emerging economy , 2017, J. Knowl. Manag..

[16]  A. Ansari,et al.  Ability-based emotional intelligence and knowledge sharing: The moderating role of trust in co-workers , 2017 .

[17]  Linda Argote,et al.  Managing Knowledge in Organizations: An Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[18]  D. Krackhardt.  Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. , 1990 .

[19]  Kuan Yew Wong,et al.  Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and medium enterprises , 2005, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[20]  Brian S. Butler,et al.  Membership Size, Communication Activity, and Sustainability: A Resource-Based Model of Online Social Structures , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[21]  Jungjoo Jahng,et al.  The Effect of Personal Characteristics and User Involvement on Knowledge Sharing in the Knowledge-Exchange Website Context , 2009 .

[22]  David A. Huffaker,et al.  Dimensions of leadership and social influence in online communities , 2010 .

[23]  Bart van den Hooff,et al.  Explaining Knowledge Sharing , 2006, Commun. Res..

[24]  R. Noe,et al.  Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research , 2010 .

[25]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Tie and Network Correlates of Individual Performance in Knowledge-Intensive Work , 2004 .

[26]  Bart van den Hooff,et al.  Managing knowledge sharing: Emergent and engineering approaches , 2009, Inf. Manag..

[27]  Paul H. J. Hendriks,et al.  Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing , 1999 .

[28]  Samer Faraj,et al.  Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice , 2005, MIS Q..

[29]  Deborah H. Gruenfeld,et al.  Group Composition and Decision Making: How Member Familiarity and Information Distribution Affect Process and Performance , 1996 .

[30]  R. Noe,et al.  Motivating Knowledge Sharing in Knowledge Management Systems , 2014 .

[31]  Y. Gong,et al.  Social capital, motivations, and knowledge sharing intention in health Q&A communities , 2017 .

[32]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994 .