Ego-network stability and exploratory innovation: the moderating role of knowledge networks

Abstract

PurposePrevious studies examined the effect of inter-organizational collaboration relationships on organizational innovation. However, most focused on the configuration of the network from the static network perspective, and few examined the influence of network structure stability on an organization's exploratory innovation from the ego-network perspective. This study addresses this research gap by focusing on ego-network stability and its effect on an organization's exploratory innovation.Design/methodology/approachThe empirical setting is the smartphone collaboration network from 2004 to 2017. We selected one-site schemes and panel data of patents from the Derwent Innovation Database. A negative binomial model with fixed effects was used to test our hypotheses.FindingsThe regression results show that an organization's ego-network stability has an inverted-U-shaped relationship with its exploratory innovation. Global cohesion of the focal organization's knowledge network moderates the process in such a way that when it is at a high level, an organization's exploratory innovation can benefit more from a moderate level of ego-network stability. However, local cohesion moderates in such a way that, at a low level, an organization's exploratory innovation can benefit more from a moderate level of ego-network stability.Originality/valueThis study highlights the importance of ego-network stability and its effect on the focal organization's exploratory innovation. It contributes to the literature on the relationship between ego-network stability and exploratory innovation by investigating the moderating role of global cohesion and local cohesion in knowledge networks.

China’s non-ferrous metal recycling technology convergence and driving factors: A quadratic assignment procedure analysis based on patent collaboration-based network structural hole

“…Such organizations are usually favorable in information, control, and independent R&D. Organizations occupying structural holes can access heterogeneous, non-redundant, and timely knowledge and information from both ends of the structural hole, thus facilitating the recombination of this knowledge and technology into a new generation [33]. Nodes in the intermediary bridge position have the advantage of independent R&D, and structural holes are less constrained and less susceptible to behavioral norms and paradigms of thinking from other organizations, which facilitates the development of organizational innovation [33,34]. Moreover, technology convergence is the reorganization between different processes, industries, and technologies to produce new processes and technologies [35].…”

“…They may engage in innovative activities with lower costs and greater independence than other organizations, subject to interference, such as intellectual property risks in searching and absorbing external knowledge technologies. The control advantage allows organizations to gain greater bargaining power and control over resources or outcomes by bridging connections in R&D collaborations, effectively building strategic alliances and inducing favorable decisions [34,36,37]. Thus, organizations with fewer structural hole constraints can leap across the structural holes in the collaborative network by leveraging their ability to control external resources to facilitate technology transfer, absorption, and digestion and promote technology convergence efficiency.…”

Research on the Influence of Mixed-Ownership Reform on Exploratory Innovation of SOEs: The Mediation Effect of Agency Conflict and Financing Constraint

“…Exploratory innovation is an effective approach for enterprises to cultivate and maintain core competitiveness (J. P. Wang, 2020).…”

Linking networking capability and ambidextrous innovation strategies: the mediating roles of knowledge assimilation application and knowledge transformation application

“…Most studies found positive relationships (Guan and Liu, 2016; Zhang and Luo, 2020; Xie and Wang, 2021). Some studies reported inverted-U relationships (Dong et al , 2017; Wang et al , 2020), and other studies revealed insignificant relationships (Krammer and Jiménez, 2020; Wen et al , 2020; Yang et al , 2022), or even negative relationships (Yan and Guan, 2018; Cao et al , 2020). The mixed results indicated that the effects are more complicated beyond our expectations, which brings massive challenges for managers to conduct innovation.…”