Page 187 -

170 Chapter 5

different specialties together, such as engineering, design, and marketing. But in larger
organizations, these specialties tend to separate into their own groups. When that
happens, the communities develop different ways of working, even different vocabu-
laries, and they no longer understand each other. Knowledge still fl ows easily within
specialties, but not across them (Excerpt from CSC 2002).
Social network analysis is a very useful tool as it provides the means of identifying
the undernets in an organization ( Weinberger 1999 ). The undernet is defi ned as the
intranets that escape the offi cial gaze of the organization — they represent how people
really share knowledge and they constitute the skeleton of the communities of
practice that have emerged. Weinberger quite aptly refers to these undernets as
the “ lifeblood ” of the organization. In fact, many corporate top-down knowledge
management initiatives are met with lack of interest and lack of activity, and inves-
tigation invariably turns up the existence of the “ other ” network — the one people
really use!

Organizational Learning and Social Capital

Human capital refers to individuals ’ education, skills, and background necessary to be
productive in an organization or profession. However, sociologists such as Coleman
(1994) and Granovetter and Swedberg (2001 ) argue that there is much more to explain-
ing the differences in individual success than individual characteristics alone. The
concrete personal relationships and networks of relations generate trust, establish
expectations, and create and enforce norms. These webs of social relationships infl u-
ence individual behavior and ultimately organizational success. The term “ social
capital ” has been coined to refer to the institutions, relationships, and norms that
shape the quality and quantity of an organization ’ s social interactions ( Lesser and
Prusak 2001 ). Social capital is not just the sum of the individuals that comprise an
organization — it is the glue that holds them together.
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) defi ne social capital as “ the sum of the actual and
potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network
of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit. It thus comprises both the
network and the assets that may be mobilized through that network ” (p. 243). While
the concept is still evolving, there are increasing calls for expanded “ investment ” on
the part of business, government, and other organizations that promote the develop-
ment and maintenance of social capital. Social capital facilitates the creation of new
intellectual capital. Organizations, as institutional settings, are conducive to the devel-
opment of high levels of social capital. It is because of their more dense social capital