Page 177 -

166 MANAGING KNOWLEDGE WORK AND INNOVATION

knowledge to flow across different groups and settings. The second major
approach is to see social networks as communities. This approach emphasizes
not so much the form and structure of the network as the quality of the rela-
tionships within it. In particular, it highlights the importance of shared practices
and understandings amongst the members of the community. Where the first
approach emphasizes the benefits of knowledge flow, a focus on community
highlights the benefits of shared learning.

>> NETWORKS AS CHANNELS
Much of the research in this area focuses on the way social networks enable
knowledge to flow between groups and organizations. This is certainly an impor-
tant effect of such networks and well worth discussing. But, before we move on
to this positive effect of networks, it is worth remembering that in some settings
social networks can operate as exclusive clubs or ‘old boy networks’ which close
down knowledge flows, restrict less privileged groups such as women and ethnic
minorities, and generally hamper innovation and change. Thus, as Edelman et
al. note, social networks are double-edged in their effects – sometimes support-
ing and speeding knowledge flows, but at other points, slowing or halting them
(Edelman et al., 2004).
Turning to the more positive effects of networks, we can note first that their
role in knowledge flows is to a large extent influenced by their shape and struc-
ture. Horizontal networks extending across multiple organizations, for example,
enable the transfer of knowledge across organizational and inter-organizational
boundaries (Alter and Hage, 1993; Conway, 1995). The network’s ability to
cut across such boundaries depends not only on its structure but also on the
kind of social ties that it contains. The importance of such ties is revealed by
studies based on the techniques of social network analysis. One of the persistent
findings from such studies is the tendency for knowledge to flow only within the
bounds set by existing networks. This was highlighted, for instance, by one such
analysis of knowledge sharing within a major pharmaceutical company. This
found that 70 per cent of knowledge sharing amongst the company’s five R&D
centres worldwide took place within the individual centres and only 5 per cent
between centres: this despite the fact that groups within the five centres were
working on a number of common problems. This lack of knowledge sharing
between the centres was attributed not so much to geographical distance as to
the lack of social ties between them. Levels of trust and social interaction were
low because recent closures of some facilities had left the centres feeling that
they were in competition with each other (Scarbrough, 2003).
As indicated above, the quality of the social ties making up a network is impor-
tant because it helps to determine the network’s capacity as a channel for knowl-
edge. Here, we need to distinguish between ‘strong’ and ‘weak ties’. Strong
ties are trust-based and denote close personal relationships with family, friends
and workmates (Granovetter, 1973). Weak ties, however, encompass the indi-
vidual’s relationships with a much wider group of contacts and acquaintances.

6/5/09 7:19:35 AM
9780230_522015_09_cha08.indd 166
9780230_522015_09_cha08.indd 166 6/5/09 7:19:35 AM