Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range

This research considers how different features of informal networks affect knowledge transfer. As a complement to previous research that has emphasized the dyadic tie strength component of informal networks, we focus on how network structure influences the knowledge transfer process. We propose that social cohesion around a relationship affects the willingness and motivation of individuals to invest time, energy, and effort in sharing knowledge with others. We further argue that the network range, ties to different knowledge pools, increases a person's ability to convey complex ideas to heterogeneous audiences. We also examine explanations for knowledge transfer based on absorptive capacity, which emphasizes the role of common knowledge, and relational embeddedness, which stresses the importance of tie strength. We investigate the network effect on knowledge transfer using data from a contract R&D firm. The results indicate that both social cohesion and network range ease knowledge transfer, over and above the effect for the strength of the tie between two people. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on effective knowledge transfer, social capital, and information diffusion.

[1]  F. Heider.  The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[2]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[3]  E. Laumann.  Prestige And Association In An Urban Community , 1966 .

[4]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  K. Arrow.  The limits of organization , 1974 .

[6]  R. Brandis.  The Limits of Organization , 1975 .

[7]  R. Burt.  Applied Network Analysis , 1978 .

[8]  C. Fischer.  To Dwell Among Friends , 1982 .

[9]  Mark S. Granovetter.  T H E S T R E N G T H O F WEAK TIES: A NETWORK THEORY REVISITED , 1983 .

[10]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Measuring Tie Strength , 1984 .

[11]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  The analysis of cross-classified data having ordered categories , 1985 .

[12]  Ronald S. Burt,et al.  Network items and the general social survey , 1984 .

[13]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[14]  N. Lin,et al.  Social structure and network analysis , 1985 .

[15]  P. M. Podsakoff,et al.  Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects , 1986 .

[16]  J. E. Jackson.  The Analysis of Cross-Classified Data Having Ordered Categories , 1986 .

[17]  R. Burt.  Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[18]  J. Coleman,et al.  Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[19]  M. Mizruchi,et al.  Economic concentration and corporate political behavior: A cross-industry comparison , 1988 .

[20]  D. Mackie,et al.  Intergroup relations. , 2019, Annual Review of Psychology.

[21]  M. Mizruchi.  Similarity of Political Behavior Among Large American Corporations , 1989, American Journal of Sociology.

[22]  J. Coleman.  Foundations of Social Theory , 1990 .

[23]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

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

[25]  L. Argote,et al.  The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings , 1990 .

[26]  F. Yammarino,et al.  Identifying Common Methods Variance With Data Collected From A Single Source: An Unresolved Sticky Issue , 1991 .

[27]  H. Simon.  Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning , 1991 .

[28]  G. Hamel.  Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances , 1991 .

[29]  Linda Argote,et al.  Organizational Learning Curves: A Method for Investigating Intra-Plant Transfer of Knowledge Acquired Through Learning by Doing , 1991 .

[30]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[31]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[32]  D. Strang,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneity in Diffusion , 1993, American Journal of Sociology.

[33]  John F. Padgett,et al.  Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434 , 1993, American Journal of Sociology.

[34]  A. Portes,et al.  Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action , 1993, American Journal of Sociology.

[35]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  The myopia of learning , 1993 .

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

[37]  E. Hippel.  Sticky Information and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation , 1994 .

[38]  W. Batchelder,et al.  Systematic Biases in Social Perception , 1994, American Journal of Sociology.

[39]  Eric D. Darr,et al.  The Acquisition, Transfer, and Depreciation of Knowledge in Service Organizations: Productivity in Franchises , 1995 .

[40]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test , 1995 .

[41]  B. Kogut,et al.  What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning , 1996 .

[42]  B. Uzzi,et al.  The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect , 1996 .

[43]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness , 1997 .

[44]  William H. Glick,et al.  Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results? , 1998 .

[45]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Survival-enhancing learning in the Manhattan hotel industry , 1998 .

[46]  L. Argote.  Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge , 1999 .

[47]  D. Krackhardt,et al.  Whether close or far: Social distance effects on perceived balance in friendship networks , 1999 .

[48]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[49]  P. Ingram,et al.  Friendships among Competitors in the Sydney Hotel Industry1 , 2000, American Journal of Sociology.

[50]  L. Argote,et al.  KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER: A BASIS FOR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN FIRMS , 2000 .

[51]  R. Burt.  The Network Structure Of Social Capital , 2000 .

[52]  J. Levine,et al.  Knowledge Transfer in Organizations: Learning from the Experience of Others☆ , 2000 .

[53]  S. Borgatti,et al.  A SOCIAL NETWORK VIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING. , 2001 .

[54]  William Simpson,et al.  The Quadratic Assignment Procedure (QAP) , 2001 .

[55]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  Knowledge Networks: Explaining Effective Knowledge Sharing in Multiunit Companies , 2002 .

[56]  Leigh Thompson,et al.  Learning Negotiation Skills: Four Models of Knowledge Creation and Transfer , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[57]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[58]  Mary E. Zellmer-Bruhn.  Interruptive Events and Team Knowledge Acquisition , 2003, Manag. Sci..

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

[60]  R. Burt.  The Social Structure of Competition , 2004 .

[61]  Ezra W. Zuckerman,et al.  How to Make the Team: Social Networks vs. Demography as Criteria for Designing Effective Teams , 2004 .