Investigating the role of social capital in innovation: sparse versus dense network

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to analyze the literature on social capital and its contribution to innovation performance.Design/methodology/approach -Through an intensive review of the literature, the paper first analyzes the origin of the concept of social capital. It then explains the contribution of social capital within the organization and management studies. Further, social capital is considered the facilitator of knowledge search and knowledge sharing activities, which are considered of capital importance to innovation outcomes. Further, the paper clarifies the implications of social capital to two types of innovation: radical vs incremental innovation. Finally, the paper analyzes the structural dimension of social capital by focusing on the contribution of two different configurations and their effect on innovation: sparse vs cohesive networks.Findings -The paper contributes to the literature by uncovering the positive, but also the negative, drawbacks of social capital. Moreover, the paper focuses on the structural dimension of social capital and it discusses the controversial results of two different configurations of social capital (sparse vs cohesive networks) to the innovation performance.Originality/value -This paper provides a comprehensive literature review on both the positive and negative effects of social capital on innovation performance. The paper links social capital to the new innovation model, emphasizing the importance of social capital to knowledge search and sharing activities, and then to the innovation process. The authors suggest investigating the contribution of social capital according to firms' innovation scopes.

Knowledge and Discourse Matters

“…Earl (2001) invokes a culture of mutual support as critical to KS while others more explicitly emphasise a culture based on trust (e.g., Alguezaui and Filieri, 2010;Panahi, Watson and Partridge, 2013;Leonard, 2007;Lin and Huang, 2010;Bock et al, 2005). In their literature review and case study examining the effects of culture in KM practices in general, Yoo and Torrey (2002) claim that KS is concerned with trust, integrity, and status.…”

“…As indicated earlier, a review of the KM literature on knowledge sharing raises a number of barriers including what is described as the natural desire to store and hoard one's knowledge (Bock et al, 2005;Prusak and Weiss, 2007;Rechberg and Syed, 2013); costs associated with KS (e.g., Alguezaui and Filieri, 2010); the threat of reputational damage (e.g., Bock et al;Leonard and Sensiper, 2007); and the lack of personal recognition (Rechberg and Syed).…”

“…Amongst these, knowledge sharing is particularly associated with the threat of reputational damage (Leonard and Sensiper, 2007;Bock et al, 2005), low values assigned to mentoring and sharing (Leonard and Sensiper), cost (Bock et al;Alguezaui and Filieri, 2010), and the threat of industrial espionage (Bock et al). Arguably, all of these factors index to risk.…”

“…From a common-sense perspective, however, the prospect of an organization in which its members do not share their knowledge either in conversation or in text would seem inconceivable. More specifically, KS is connected to competitive advantage (Andreeva and Kainto, 2011;Bock et al, 2005;Ringel-Bickelmaier and Ringel, 2010); increased productivity (e.g., Alguezaui and Filieri, 2010); it is key to creating value (e.g., Garcia-Perez and Ayres, 2010: Bock et al); critical to innovation (e.g., Andreeva and Kainto; Alguezaui and Filieri); KS supports response to change and quality improvements, and contributes to new knowledge creation (Andreeva and Kainto). The practice of sharing knowledge is also linked to cost reduction (Ringel-Bickelmaier and Ringel).…”

“…Person-to-person communications in the form of regular meetings (Earl, 2001), physical proximity (Leonard, 2007), and shared narratives (Leonard;Alguezaui and Filieri, 2010) are promoted as keyand common-sense -enablers. These have synergies with an emphasis on the social group (Prusak and Weiss, 2007), networking (Quinn, Anderson and Finkelstein, 1996), and the idea of density (Buchel, 2007;Alguezaui and Filieri). Donate and Guadamillas (2011), in their study of Spanish firms' sharing of best practices, find that coaching and leadership are important.…”