Examining the relationship between social capital and knowledge usage in the nonprofit industry

Quality decisions from physicians’ shared knowledge in virtual communities

“…While Fernandez-Perez et al (2016) rejected that social interaction ties facilitate knowledge sharing, Barroso-Castro et al (2016) found that virtual interactions assist knowledge sharing. Furthermore, Mikovic et al (2019) qualitatively confirmed that interaction-ties affected knowledge management processes. They examined the relationship between social network ties and application of knowledge in the SC, by interviewing 215 employees of European non-profit sector, and confirmed that SC, generated from internal organisational ties, substantially influenced knowledge-usage.…”

How the egocentric alliance network impacts firm ambidextrous innovation: a three-way interaction model

“…Especially for the exploratory innovation that needs to absorb and combine the novel knowledge supplied by foreign alters, it is critical to have a high-quality knowledge flow channel with the Third, AFD and APGD co-moderate the SH-firm ambidextrous innovation nexus in the way that when AFD and APGD are both at high levels, the brokerage benefits of spanning SH increase, meanwhile the transaction costs decrease and thus firm exploitative innovation and exploratory innovation get improved. As mentioned, SH, AFD and APFD reflect three differential dimensions of alliance network capital (structural, relational and cognitive) and complement each other (Poorkavoos et al, 2011;Mikovic et al, 2019). The verification of the three-way interaction effects for firm ambidextrous innovation, especially the exploratory innovation, explains why AFD and APGD alone could not impact the SH-exploratory innovation nexus, that is, the realization of the knowledge exploration benefits through occupying the structural brokerage position in the egocentric alliance network depends on two factors at the same time, namely, diversified knowledge supply and high-quality knowledge flow.…”

“…A few scholars noted that the structural capital mainly addresses the advantageous position for potential knowledge brokerage benefits, relational capital mainly reflects the quality of knowledge flow channels and cognitive capital is about the characteristics of the knowledge and skills affiliated with alters (Poorkavoos et al, 2011). Hence, these three dimensions of network capital may decouple with each other and play differential roles in knowledge exploitation and exploration (Mikovic et al, 2019). Until now, no empirical research is conducted for in-depth investigation of their three-way interaction influence mechanism in firm ambidextrous innovation.…”

“…Hence, AFD and APGD decouple with each other in impacting the knowledge flow and knowledge combining. Opinions derived from the social capital theory also suppose that network characteristics in terms of brokerage position, functional diversity of ties and geographical diversity of alters indicate the network structural, relational and cognitive capital, respectively (Mikovic et al, 2019), and thus impact knowledge exploitation and exploration from differential perspectives. The fact that the returns of the knowledge brokerage advantageous position depend on both the quality of knowledge flows (Tiwana, 2008;Tang et al, 2017) and diversity and novelty of knowledge resources (Hahl et al, 2016) suggests that AFD and APGD would co-moderate the SH-firm ambidextrous innovation nexus.…”

“…In this sense, these three types of network characteristics may complement each other in impacting ambidextrous innovation. Insights from the social capital theory also suggest that network characteristics in terms of structural, relational and nodal dimensions reflect three dimensions of network capital, namely, structural, relational and cognitive capital, respectively, and thus are pertinent to knowledge exploitation and exploration from differential perspectives (Mikovic et al, 2019). The introduction of relational and network nodal characteristics may provide new insights into the SH-ambidextrous innovation nexus and help explain the cost-benefit paradox of SH.…”