The social underpinnings of absorptive capacity: The moderating effects of structural holes on innovation generation based on external knowledge

Strategic Management Journal

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 586-597

  Tortoriello, Marco ^a  

^a IESE BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Spain)

Author keywords

absorptive capacity; individual level; innovations; knowledge management; social networks

Indexed keywords

MANAGEMENT; PLANNING; SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY; EXTERNAL KNOWLEDGE; HIGH TECH COMPANIES; INDIVIDUAL LEVELS; KNOWLEDGE-SHARING; MODERATING EFFECT; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; SOCIAL STRUCTURE;

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84924029035     PISSN: 01432095     EISSN: 10970266     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/smj.2228     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Allen TJ, Cohen SI,. 1969. Information flow in research and development laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly 14 (1): 12-19.
2. Burt RS,. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
3. Burt RS,. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110: 349-399.
4. Cameron AC, Gelbach JB, Miller DL,. 2011. Robust inference with multi-way clustering. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 29 (2): 238-249.
5. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA,. 1989. Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Economic Journal 99: 569-596.
6. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA,. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128-152.
7. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA,. 1994. Fortune favors the prepared firm. Management Science 40 (2): 227-251.
8. Cross R, Cummings JN,. 2004. Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Academy of Management Journal 47 (6): 928-937.
9. Gould RV, Fernandez RM,. 1989. Structures of mediation: a formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology 19: 89-126.
10. Haas MR, Hansen MT,. 2007. Different knowledge, different benefits: toward a productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations. Strategic Management Journal 28 (11): 1133-1153.
11. Hamilton BH, Nickerson JA,. 2003. Correcting for endogeneity in strategy research. Strategic Organization 1 (1): 51-78.
12. Hargadon AB,. 2002. Brokering knowledge: linking learning and innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior 24: 41-85.
13. Hargadon AB,. 2003. How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth About How Companies Innovate. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
14. Heckman J,. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47: 153-161.
15. Henderson R, Cockburn I,. 1994. Measuring competence-exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal 15: 63-84.
16. Kleinbaum AM, Stuart TE, Tushman ML,. 2013. Discretion within constraint: homophily and structure in a formal organization. Organization Science 24 (5): 1316-1336.
17. Kleinbaum AM, Tushman ML,. 2007. Building bridges: the social structure of interdependent innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1 (1-2): 103-122.
18. Lane PJ, Koka BR, Pathak S,. 2006. The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review 31 (4): 833-863.
19. Lane PJ, Lubatkin M,. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal 19 (5): 461-477.
20. Lane PJ, Salk JE, Lyles MA,. 2001. Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal 22 (12): 1139-1161.
21. Laursen K, Salter A,. 2006. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal 27: 131-150.
22. Lenox M, King A,. 2004. Prospects for developing absorptive capacity through internal information provision. Strategic Management Journal 25: 331-345.
23. Marsden PV,. 1990. Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology 16: 435-463.
24. Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silverman BS,. 1996. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal 17: 77-91.
25. Penner-Hahn JD, Shaver MJ,. 2005. Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of the Japanese pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Management Journal 26 (2): 121-140.
26. Perry-Smith JE,. 2006. Social yet creative: the role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal 49: 85-101.
27. Reagans R, McEvily B,. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly 48 (2): 240-267.
28. Rosenkopf L, Almeida P,. 2003. Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science 49 (6): 751-766.
29. Rosenkopf L, Nerkar A,. 2001. Beyond local search: boundary spanning, exploration and impact on the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal 22: 287-306.
30. Tortoriello M, Krackhardt D,. 2010. Activating cross-boundary knowledge: the role of Simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Academy of Management Journal 53 (1): 167-181.
31. Tortoriello M, Reagans R, McEvily B,. 2012. Bridging the knowledge gap: the influence of strong ties, network cohesion, and network range on the transfer of knowledge between organizational units. Organization Science 23 (4): 1024-1039.
32. Tsai WP,. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal 44 (5): 996-1004.
33. Tushman ML,. 1977. Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly 22: 587-605.
34. Tushman ML, Katz R,. 1980. External communication and project performance: an investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science 26 (11): 1071-1085.
35. Tushman ML, Scanlan TJ,. 1981. Characteristics and external orientations of boundary spanning individuals. Academy of Management Journal 24 (1): 83-98.
36. Volberda HW, Foss NJ, Lyles MA,. 2010. Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: how to realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science 21 (4): 932-951.
37. Whittington K, Smith-Doerr L,. 2008. Women inventors in context: disparities in patenting across academia and industry. Gender and Society 22 (2): 194-218.
38. Zelner BA,. 2009. Using simulation to interpret results from logit, probit, and other nonlinear models. Strategic Management Journal 30: 1335-1348.