The research area of knowledge transfer is a critical one in the current era of the knowledge economy. Previous studies have channelled much effort into understanding how knowledge transfer could be facilitated efficiently. Yet most of these studies conducted research only at the individual level, ignoring the fact that, in many organizations, the team now serves as the basic unit for transferring and preserving knowledge. In addition, these studies have not put much emphasis on the learning side of knowledge transfer. This study attempts to fill the gaps left by previous studies. First, we identify two determinants of knowledge transfer, namely, knowledge sharing and learning intensity. Furthermore, we discuss how to efficiently foster knowledge sharing and learning intensity at the team level from the perspective of social capital. Finally, we conduct an empirical survey to examine relationships among the components of social capital (i.e. trust and social interaction), and knowledge sharing and learning intensity.
J. Nahapiet and S. Ghoshal, Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage, Academy of Management Review23(2) ( 1998) 242—66.
2.
W. Tsai and S. Ghoshal, Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks, Academy of Management Journal41(4) (1998) 464—76.
3.
C. Leana and H. Van Buren, Organizational social capital and employment practices, Academy of Management Review24(3) (1999) 538—55.
4.
V. Hazleton and W. Kennan, Social capital: reconceptualizing the bottom line, Corporate Communications5(2) (2000) 81—6.
5.
G. Widén-Wulff and M. Ginman, Explaining knowledge sharing in organizations through the dimensions of social capital, Journal of Information Science30(5) (2004) 448—58.
6.
L.C. Abrams , R. Cross, E. Lesser and D.Z. Levin, Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks, Academy of Management Executive17(4) (2003) 64—77.
7.
J.S. Brown, Research that reinvents the corporation, Harvard Business Review69(1) (1991) 102—11.
8.
D.A. Garvin, Building a learning organization, Harvard Business Review71(4) ( 1993) 78—91.
9.
J.B. Quinn, P. Anderson and S. Finkelstein, Managing professional intellect: making the most of the best, Harvard Business Review74(2) (1996) 71—80.
10.
T.H. Davenport and L. Prusak, Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998).
11.
J.S. Brown and P. Duguid, Balancing act: how to capture knowledge without killing it, Harvard Business Review78(3) (2000) 73—80.
12.
R. McDermott , Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management, California Management Review41(4) ( 1999) 103—17.
13.
P. Hendriks, Why share knowledge? The Influence of ICT on motivation for knowledge sharing, Knowledge and ProcessManagement6(2) (1999) 91—100.
14.
I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company (Oxford University Press , New York, 1995).
15.
N.M. Dixon, Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2000).
16.
L. Argote, Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge (Kluwer, London, 1999).
17.
M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne (eds), Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice (Sage, London, 1999).
18.
T.J. Beckman , The current state of knowledge management. In: J. Liebowitz (ed.), Knowledge Management Handbook (CRC Press, Florida, 1999) 1.1—1.22.
19.
D.J. McAllister , Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations, Academy of Management Journal38(1) (1995) 24—59.
20.
M.S. Clark , J. Mills and M.C. Powell, Keeping track of needs in communal and exchange relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(2) (1986) 333—8.
21.
M.S. Clark , J. Mills and D.M. Corcoran, Keeping track of needs and inputs of friends and strangers, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin15(4) ( 1989) 533—42.
22.
M.S. Clark and J. Mills, Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37(1) (1979) 12—24.
23.
P.M. Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life (Wiley, New York, 1964).
24.
H. Hall, Borrowed theory: applying exchange theories in information science research , Library & Information Science Research25 (2003) 287—306.
25.
S.L. Robinson , Trust and breach of the psychological contract , Administrative Science Quarterly41(4) (1996) 574—99.
26.
A. Cabrera and E.F. Cabrera, Knowledge-sharing dilemmas, Organization Studies23(5) (2002) 687—710.
27.
A. Kleiner and G. Roth, How to make experience your company's best teacher, Harvard Business Review75(5) (1997) 172—7.
28.
M. Argyle, SocialInteraction (Tavistock, London, 1978).
29.
M.B. Brewer , Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive, motivational analysis, Psychological Bulletin86 (1979) 307—24.
30.
M.B. Brewer and R.M. Kramer, The psychology of intergroup attitudes and behavior, Annual Review ofPsychology36 (1985) 219—43.
M. Diehl , The minimal group paradigm: theoretical explanations and empirical findings. In W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone (ed.), European Review of Social Psychology Volume 1 (Wiley, Chichester, 1990) 263—92.
33.
T. Erickson, The World-Wide-Web as social hypertext, Communications of theACM39(1) (1996) 15—17.
34.
A. Dieberger , Supporting social navigation on the World Wide Web, International Journal of Human— ComputerStudies46(6) ( 1997) 815—25.
35.
M.O. Riedl and R.St. Amant, Social navigation: modeling, simulation, and experimentation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2003, Melbourne (ACM, 2003) 361—8.
36.
T.A. Stewart , Intellectual Capital: the New Wealth of Organizations (Doubleday, New York, 1997).
37.
K.U. Koskinen , P. Pihlanto and H. Vanharanta, Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in a project work context, International Journal of Project Management21(4) (2003) 281—90.
38.
R.P. Weber, Basic Content Analysis (Sage, Newbury Park, 1990).
39.
J.J. Wu , Influence of market orientation and strategy on travel industry performance: an empirical study of e-commerce in Taiwan , Tourism Management25 (2004) 357—65.
40.
G.L. Stewart and M.R. Barrick, Team structure and performance: assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type , Academy of Management Journal43(2) 2000135—48.
41.
J. Kratzer, R.T.A.J. Leenders and J.M.L. Van Engelen , Keeping virtual R&D teams creative, Research-Technology Management48(2) (2005) 59—60.
42.
J.W. Cheng and S.C. Li, The relationships of organization justice, trust and knowledge sharing behaviors , Journal of Human Resource Management1(2) (2001) 69—93. [In Chinese]
43.
G.R. Salancik and J. Pfeffer, An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes, Administrative Science Quarterly22(3) (1977) 427—56.
44.
D. Weiss, R. Dawis, G. England and L. Lofquist (eds), Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (University of Minnesota Industrial Relations Center, Minneapolis, 1967 ).
45.
C. Perrow, A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations, American Sociological Review32 ( 1967) 197—208.
46.
R. Daft and N.B. Macintosh, A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units, Administrative Science Quarterly26(2) ( 1981) 207—24.
47.
R. Myers, Classical and ModernRegression with Applications (Duxbury Press, Boston, 1990).
48.
P.L. Schindler and C.C. Thomas, The structure of interpersonal trust in the workplace, Psychological Reports73 (1993) 563—73.
49.
H. Hall, Input-friendliness: motivating knowledge sharing across intranets, Journal of Information Science27(3) (2001) 139—46.
50.
C. Argyris , Teaching smart people how to learn, Harvard Business Review69(3) (1991) 99—109.
51.
J. Hyldegård , Collaborative information behaviour; exploring Kuhlthau's information search process model in a group-based educational setting , Information Processing and Management42(1) (2006) 276—98.
