Recent research suggests that people obtain useful knowledge from others with whom they work closely and frequently (i.e., strong ties). Yet there has been limited empirical work examining why this is so. Moreover, other research suggests that weak ties provide useful knowledge. To help integrate these multiple findings, we propose and test a model of two-party (dyadic) knowledge exchange, with strong support in each of the three companies surveyed. First, the link between strong ties and receipt of useful knowledge (as reported by the knowledge seeker) was mediated by competence-and benevolence-based trust. Second, once we controlled for these two trust dimensions, the structural benefit of weak ties became visible. This latter finding is consistent with prior research suggesting that weak ties provide access to non-redundant information. Third, we found that competence-based trust was especially important for the receipt of tacit knowledge. We discuss implications for theory and practice. 3Promoting knowledge creation and transfer within organizational settings is an increasingly important challenge for managers today (Kogut & Zander, 1992). Organizations that can make full use of their collective expertise and knowledge are likely to be more innovative, efficient, and effective in the marketplace (Grant, 1996;Wernerfelt, 1984). Yet ensuring effective knowledge creation and transfer has proven a difficult challenge. At least three separate literatures-on social networks, trust, and organizational learning/knowledge-have addressed aspects of the knowledge transfer problem. We propose and test empirically a theoretical approach that synthesizes these three streams. Structural Characteristics of Knowledge TransferSocial network researchers have offered clear evidence of the extent to which knowledge diffusion occurs via social relations (e.g., Rogers, 1995). Work dating to Pelz and Andrews (1968), Mintzberg (1973), andAllen (1977) indicates that people prefer to turn to other people rather than documents for information. For example, Allen (1977) found that engineers and scientists were roughly five times more likely to turn to a person for information than to an impersonal source such as a database or file cabinet. More recently, Cross (2001) found that even people with ready access to well-populated electronic and paper-based sources of information reported seeking information from colleagues significantly more than from these sources. In general, researchers have found relationships to be important for acquiring information (Burt, 1992); learning how to do one's work (Lave & Wenger, 1991); making sense of ambiguous environments or events (Weick, 1979); and solving complex problems (Hutchins, 1991).Social network theorists have focused much of their attention on structural properties of networks (Adler & Kwon, 2002), such as structural holes at the network level (Burt, 1992) and tie strength at the dyadic level (Granovetter, 1973). Tie strength characterizes the closeness of a relationship between two...

Recent research suggests that people obtain useful knowledge from others with whom they work closely and frequently (i.e., strong ties). Yet there has been limited empirical work examining why this is so. Moreover, other research suggests that weak ties provide useful knowledge. To help integrate these multiple findings, we propose and test a model of two-party (dyadic) knowledge exchange, with strong support in each of the three companies surveyed. First, the link between strong ties and receipt of useful knowledge (as reported by the knowledge seeker) was mediated by competence-and benevolence-based trust. Second, once we controlled for these two trust dimensions, the structural benefit of weak ties became visible. This latter finding is consistent with prior research suggesting that weak ties provide access to non-redundant information. Third, we found that competence-based trust was especially important for the receipt of tacit knowledge. We discuss implications for theory and practice. 3Promoting knowledge creation and transfer within organizational settings is an increasingly important challenge for managers today (Kogut & Zander, 1992). Organizations that can make full use of their collective expertise and knowledge are likely to be more innovative, efficient, and effective in the marketplace (Grant, 1996;Wernerfelt, 1984). Yet ensuring effective knowledge creation and transfer has proven a difficult challenge. At least three separate literatures-on social networks, trust, and organizational learning/knowledge-have addressed aspects of the knowledge transfer problem. We propose and test empirically a theoretical approach that synthesizes these three streams. Structural Characteristics of Knowledge TransferSocial network researchers have offered clear evidence of the extent to which knowledge diffusion occurs via social relations (e.g., Rogers, 1995). Work dating to Pelz and Andrews (1968), Mintzberg (1973), andAllen (1977) indicates that people prefer to turn to other people rather than documents for information. For example, Allen (1977) found that engineers and scientists were roughly five times more likely to turn to a person for information than to an impersonal source such as a database or file cabinet. More recently, Cross (2001) found that even people with ready access to well-populated electronic and paper-based sources of information reported seeking information from colleagues significantly more than from these sources. In general, researchers have found relationships to be important for acquiring information (Burt, 1992); learning how to do one's work (Lave & Wenger, 1991); making sense of ambiguous environments or events (Weick, 1979); and solving complex problems (Hutchins, 1991).Social network theorists have focused much of their attention on structural properties of networks (Adler & Kwon, 2002), such as structural holes at the network level (Burt, 1992) and tie strength at the dyadic level (Granovetter, 1973). Tie strength characterizes the closeness of a relationship between two...

The rise and fall of organizational effectiveness, an “umbrella construct” once at the forefront of organizational theory, is traced through four life-cycle stages: emerging excitement, the validity challenge, “tidying up with typologies,” and construct collapse. Although the study of effectiveness has declined, research on its component elements continues to thrive. Using the effectiveness story as an exemplar, we develop a more general model of this process for all umbrella constructs, defined here as broad concepts used to encompass and account for a diverse set of phenomena. This life-cycle model—driven largely by a dialectic between researchers with a broad perspective (“umbrella advocates”) and those with a narrower one (“validity police”)—leaves open the possibility that some umbrella constructs may ultimately be made coherent or remain permanently controversial rather than collapse, as effectiveness has done. We propose that umbrella constructs will arise most frequently in academic fields without a theoretical consensus, will inevitably have their validity seriously challenged, will have a shorter life than their constituent elements, and will be more vulnerable to validity challenges when they lack support from practitioners. This model's implications for the future direction of such current umbrella constructs as organizational learning, culture, strategy, and performance are also explored and elaborated. Ironically, some evidence suggests that studies around the construct of organizational “performance” have arisen to replace the nearly identical, but fallen umbrella construct of organizational effectiveness.

In many organizations, informal networks are the primary means by which employees find information, solve complex problems, and learn how to do their work. Two forms of interpersonal trust-trust in a person's competence and in a person's benevolenceenable effective knowledge creation and sharing in these networks. Yet, though conceptually appealing, trust is an elusive concept that is often difficult for managers to influence. We conducted interviews in 20 organizations to identify ways in which interpersonal trust in a knowledge-sharing context develops. Based on this work, we summarize behaviors (e.g., discretion, consistency, collaboration) and practices (e.g., building shared vision, ensuring transparency in decision-making, holding people accountable for trust) for managers interested in promoting trust (and thereby knowledge creation and sharing) within their own organizations.

Prior meta-analytic evidence has indicated no association between relationship length and perceived trustworthiness. Viewing trustors as information processors, the authors propose a model in which relationship length, although having no direct effect on perceived trustworthiness, moderates the association between perceived trustworthiness and the basis on which people decide to trust each other. Specifically, as trustors learn about others, they base their trust on different kinds of information (demographic similarity, trustworthy behavior, and shared perspective). Hierarchical multiple regression analyses of a field survey of supervisors and subordinates from 3 companies (N ϭ 88) provide evidence consistent with this prediction: Perceived trustworthiness is associated with demographic similarity in newer relationships, with trustworthy behavior in relationships that are neither brand new nor old but in-between, and with shared perspective in older relationships.