Abstract
Knowledge sharing within a cooperative organization is an important issue since the power of its outcome has been the principal source of competitive advantage over the competitors in the market. However, without a proper collective knowledge management, its utilization as a strategic weapon or competitive advantage becomes difficult and inefficient. From an organizational perspective, the most important aspect of knowledge management is to transfer knowledge. In this regards, organizations must adopt structures that allow them to create and transfer more knowledge. Organizational communication structure affects the nature of human interactions and information flow which in its own turn can lead to a competitive advantage in the knowledge economy. However, in addition to that, social relationships between individuals in an organization can also be utilized to produce positive returns. In this article we emphasize the role of individual structural importance within an organizational informal communication structure as a mechanism for knowledge flow and speeding up organizational learning. Our experimental results indicate the fact that structural position of individuals within their informal communication networks can help the network members to have a better access to ongoing information exchange processes in the organization. The results of our analyses also show that organizational learning through an informal communication network of people in the form of scale-free connectivity pattern is faster comparing to the small-world connectivity style.



Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alazmi M, Zairi M (2003) Knowledge management critical success factors. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 14(2):199–204
Argote L, Greve H (2007) A behavioral theory of the firm—40 years and counting: introduction and impact. Organ Sci 18(3):337–349
Argyris C, Schön D (1978) Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA
Axley SR (2000) Communicating change: questions to consider. Indust Manag 42(4):18–22
Barabási A-L, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286:509–512
Barua A, Ravindran S, Whinston AB (2007) Enabling information sharing within organizations. Inf Technol Manag 8(1):31–45
Berkhin P (2005) A survey on pagerank computing. Internet Math 2(1):73–120
Bonacich P (1972) Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. J Math Sociol 2(1):113–120
Bonacich P, Lloyd P (2001) Eigenvector-like measures of centrality for asymmetric relations. Soc Networks 23(3):191–201
Bontis N, Crossan MM, Hulland J (2002) Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. J Manag Stud 39(4):437–469
Brandes U (2001) A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality*. J Math Sociol 25(2):163–177
Cross RL, Parker A (2004) The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Harvard Business Press
Crosson MM, Bedrow I (2003) Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strategic Manag J 24:1087–1105
Fang C, Lee J, Schilling MA (2010) Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: the isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organ Sci 21(3):625–642
Fleming L (2001) Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Manag Sci 47(1):117–132
Freeman L, Borgatti SP, White DR (1991) Centrality in valued graphs: a measure of betweenness based on network flow. Soc Netw 13(2):141–154
Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad Manag J 49:693–706
Harshman EF, Harshman CL (1999) Communicating with employees: building on an ethical foundation. J Bus Ethics 19(1):3–19
Hasanali F (2002) Critical success factors of knowledge management. Knowledge Manag Advan
Hatala JP (2006) Social network analysis in human resource development: a new methodology. Hum Resour Dev Rev 5(1):45–71
Hatala JP, George Lutta J (2009) Managing information sharing within an organizational setting: a social network perspective. Perform Improv Q 21(4):5–33
Jansen JJP, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2006) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Manag Sci 52(11):1661–1674
Johanson JE (2000) Formal structure and intra-organizational networks. an analysis in a combined social and health organization in Finland. Scand J Manag 16(3):249–267
Kane GC, Alavi M (2007) Information technology and organizational learning: an investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organ Sci 18(5):796–812
Kim DH (1998) The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Manag
Kleinberg JM (1999) Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. J ACM 46(5):604–632
Koohborfardhaghighi S, Kim J (2013) Using structural information for distributed recommendation in a social network. Appl Intell 38(2):255–266
Lee CY (2006) Correlations among centrality measures in complex networks. arXiv preprint physics/0605220
Lewin AY, Long CP, Carroll TN (1999) The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organ Sci 10(5):535–550
Liebowitz J (2000) Building organizational intelligence: a knowledge management primer. CRC Press
March JG (1988) Decisions and organizations. Basil Backwell, New York
March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):71–87
March JG (1994) Primer on decision making: how decisions happen. SimonandSchuster, Com
Miller KD, Zhao M, Calantone RJ (2006) Adding interpersonal learning and tacit knowledge to March’s exploration-exploitation model. Acad Manag J 49:709–722
Newman ME (2001) Scientific collaboration networks. II. shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Phys Rev E 64(1):016132
Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge creating company. Oxford University Press, New York
Page L, Brin S, Motwani R et al. (1999) The PageRank citation ranking: bringing order to the web. Technical Report, Stanford InfoLab
Pedler M, Burgogyne J, Boydell T (1997) The learning company: a strategy for sustainable development, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, London
Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday, New York
Senge P (1996) Leading learning organizations. Train Dev 50(12):36–4
Siggelkow N, Rivkin J (2005) Speed and search: designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organ Sci 16(2):101–122
Warshall S (1962) A theorem on boolean matrices. J ACM (JACM) 9(1):11–12
Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York
Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393:440
White DR, Borgatti SP (1994) Betweenness centrality measures for directed graphs. Soc Netw 16(4):335–346
Wilensky U (1999) NetLogo: Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling. Northwestern University, Evanston, http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/
Acknowledgments
This research has been funded by the “Leaders Industry-University Cooperation” Project, supported by the Ministry of Education.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koohborfardhaghighi, S., Lee, D.B. & Kim, J. How different connectivity patterns of individuals within an organization can speed up organizational learning. Multimed Tools Appl 76, 17923–17936 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3348-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3348-8