The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits

Abstract

and three anonymous reviewers for ASQ. I thank Linda Johanson for editorial guidance. Research support from the Norwegian Research Council is gratefully acknowledged.This paper combines the concept of weak ties from social network research and the notion of complex knowledge to explain the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits in a multiunit organization. I use a network study of 120 new-product development projects undertaken by 41 divisions in a large electronics company to examine the task of developing new products in the least amount of time. Findings show that weak interunit ties help a project team search for useful knowledge in other subunits but impede the transfer of complex knowledge, which tends to require a strong tie between the two parties to a transfer. Having weak interunit ties speeds up projects when knowledge is not complex but slows them down when the knowledge to be transferred is highly complex. I discuss the implications of these findings for research on social networks and product innovation.' Why are some subunits in an organization able to share knowledge among themselves whereas others are not? Addressing this question, organization scholars have analyzed factors that inhibit knowledge sharing among subunits, in particular, the lack of direct relationships and extensive communication between people from different subunits (e.g., Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Galbraith, 1973; Allen, 1977). More recently, two other lines of research have addressed the topic of knowledge sharing among people in an organization. In the product innovation literature, the argument is often made that close and frequent interactions between research and development (R&D) and other functions, teams, and operational subunits lead to project effectiveness because of the timely integration of knowledge across organizational boundaries (e.g., Clark and Fujimoto, 1991; Leonard-Barton and Sinha, 1993; Henderson and Cockburn, 1994; Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995; Szulanski, 1996). In this literature, efficient knowledge sharing is typically characterized by tight coupling between people from different organization subunits. Some social network scholars, however, provide a different argument. According to the weak-tie theory originally advanced by Granovetter (1973), distant and infrequent relationships (i.e., weak ties) are efficient for knowledge sharing because they provide access to novel information by bridging otherwise disconnected groups and individuals in an organization. Strong ties, in contrast, are likely to lead to redundant information because they tend to occur among a small group of actors in which everyone knows what the others know.The question thus arises whether it is strong or weak relationships between people in different organizational subunits that lead to efficient knowledge sharing among them. The discrepancy between the different arguments about the effects of relationship strength on knowledge sharing that are proposed in the product innovation literature and the wea...

The Complexity of the Business Network Context and Its Effect on Subsidiary Relational (Over-)Embeddedness

“…Second, the curvilinear relationship that we find adds to the discussion on the strength of weak vs. strong ties and the notion of over-embeddedness (Uzzi, 1997;Hansen, 1999;Granovetter, 1973). The finding contrasts with previous research reporting a positive linear relationship between environmental threats and relational strength (Gulati, 1995;Beckman et al, 2004;Blankenburg Holm et al, 1999).…”

“…This gap refers also to a certain neglect of the costs of forming and maintaining strong ties (e.g. Hansen, 1999) in the literature on MNC subsidiaries.…”

“…Gulati & Gargiuolo 1999). a wider network context (Anderson et al, 1994;Blankenburg Holm et al, 1996, 1999Halinen & Törnroos, 1998). Thus, while the concept of subsidiary relational embeddedness is based on the markets-as-networks logic, the environment of the subsidiaries' relationships is frequently not based on the markets-as-networks logic.…”

“…While we control for a common set of MNC-internal variables we focus on one pertinent characteristic of the network context of the subsidiaries' business relationships, namely its complexity. Similar to Blankenburg Holm et al (1996;1999), we define the complexity of the network context of business relationships as the extent to which a wide range of other actors outside the direct business relationship between the subsidiary and its partner exercise influence on the direct business relationship 2 .…”

Applying Enterprise Architecture to Business Networks

“…From the perspective of a focal point (orchestrator), value must be created and extracted from the network [Kogut, 2000]; effective creation and extraction of value hinge on certain deliberate, purposeful actions. Several authors such as [Doz, 1996, Gulati and Gargiulo, 1999, Hansen, 1999 previously observed that an orchestrator can assess the value of the relevant knowledge and capabilities residing at different points in the network and can arrange their transfer to other networks where required. From a technological perspective, web service orchestration coordinates the time-dependent sequence of web services by using a process flow.…”