Créativité et réseaux sociaux dans l'organisation ambidextre

HRM Practices and Intellectual Capital Architecture: Fostering Ambidexterity in MNCs

“…This literature associates exploratory learning with activities such as search, variation, experimentation, and discovery (quest of new knowledge), while exploitation is associated with activities such as refinement, efficiency, selection, and implementation (deepening existing knowledge; March, 1991: Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008 . The literature describes incremental innovations (minor adaptations) as exploitative and radical innovations (fundamental changes) as explorative (e .g ., Simon & Tellier, 2008;Smith & Tushman, 2005) . We focus on two different means identified in the literature to simultaneously manage and balance these two learning processes constituting ambidexterity (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008) .…”

“…Moreover, learning theorists argue that organizations do not create knowledge in and of themselves but only do so by virtue of the people (or human capital) in them (e .g ., Argyris & Schon, 1978;March, 1991) . Conversely however, individual learning is a necessary but insufficient condition for organizational learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978), which requires individuals to exchange and diffuse shared insights, knowledge, and mental models (Simon & Tellier, 2008) through the organization's social capital (Youndt et al ., 2004) . Ultimately, the knowledge created by human capital, and diffused by its social capital, becomes codified and institutionalized in the organization, thereby turning into organizational capital (e .g ., Kang & Snell, 2009) .…”

Informative Value of Individual and Relational Data Compared Through Business-Oriented Community Detection

“…Moreover, when it is the case, authors generally do not use a systematic method. For instance, the works cited in the previous paragraphs [3,17] do not use a precise definition of the concept of community and do not intend to identify all communities present in the studied network. We see two possible reasons for this.…”

“…In their analysis of firm innovativeness, Simon and Tellier [3] differentiated two kinds of innovativeness: exploitation and exploration. They showed groups with denser inner-connections were more efficient to diffuse ideas, but rupture innovations were less likely to happen in those parts of the firm.…”

“…Consequently, their analysis has been elaborated primarily in a utilitarian perspective, with a particular emphasis on their impact on the nature and efficiency of information dissemination. Their role was noticeably studied in the context of competitiveness in the construction sector [2], firm innovativeness [3], investors attraction for venture capital [4], effective use of their social capital [5] in the labor market [6], and administrative board decisions [7], among others. In Marketing Science, the focus has been put more on speed of information diffusion, with a major interest in word-of-mouth [8], changes of opinions and adoption of innovations inside groups of people (mainly consumers and potential consumers) [9][10][11] or diffusion of specific products [12].…”