+Cross

IBM Institute for Business Value
A bird’s-eye view: Using social network
analysis to improve knowledge creation
and sharing
A significant yet often overlooked component of people’s information
environments is composed of the relationships that they use to acquire
information and knowledge. Social network analysis (SNA) allows managers
to visualize and understand the myriad of relationships that can either
facilitate or impede knowledge creation and transfer.
In research conducted by the IBM Institute for Knowledge- Based Organizations,
we discovered four different relationship dimensions which are important for
effective learning. By analyzing and applying these dimensions to important
groups of people within an organization, we can improve knowledge creation
and sharing.
By Rob Cross, Andrew Parker and Stephen P. Borgatti

Social network analysis
1 Social network analysis IBM Institute for Knowledge-Based Organizations
An increasingly common scenario …
“So the call came in late on Thursday afternoon and right away, I wished I hadn’t answered the phone.
We had received a last-second opportunity to bid on a sizable piece of work that the partner on the other
end of the line really wanted to pursue. Unfortunately, I had little experience in the subject matter but
happened to be the one with availability at the time. I had no clue how to even begin looking for
relevant methodologies or case examples, so my first move was to tap into my network to find some
relevant info and leads to other people or databases. And in fact, I relied pretty heavily on this group of
people over the next couple of days. For example, Seth was great for pointing me to other people and
relevant information, Paul provided ideas on the technical content of the project while Jeff really helped
in showing me how to frame the client’s issues in ways that we could sell. He also helped navigate and
get buy-in from the client, given his knowledge of their operations and politics. And somehow in this
process, we managed to pull it off … I mean the whole game is just being the person that can get the
client what they need with the company’s resources behind you. This almost always seems to mean
knowing who knows what and figuring out a way to bring their knowledge to bear on your client’s issue.
Knowing who to turn to for what is ultimately the key to doing what you need to do quickly so you
can go home to your family.”
We live in fascinating, yet uncertain and often disconcerting times, as less and less time is
available for us to grow comfortable in our own knowledge while at work.1
Even within narrow
technical specialties, it is becoming more and more difficult just to stay current. For example,
witness today’s medical profession where, despite an unparalleled formal education, doctors
are frequently “taught” by their patients, who have more time to review massive amounts of
data related to their specific medical concern. Further, as we move into a knowledge-intensive
economy, only rarely does any one person have sufficient knowledge to solve increasingly
ambiguous and complex problems.
The opening vignette is representative of stories frequently heard when managers and
executives are asked to recount how they obtained information critical to the success of an
important project. Perhaps both the ambiguity of the initial problem posed as well as the
way the manager resolved the problem resonates with your own experience. This person
was successful, not solely as a result of his own knowledge, but rather as a product of being
able to find and apply relevant information efficiently. And of notable importance is the role
that his network played in helping him locate knowledge in a timely fashion.
Contents
1 An increasingly common scenario…
2 Social network analysis
3 Social network analysis
and knowledge
7 A knowledge-based network
9 A network view of
knowledge relationships
11 Improving a network’s capacity for
knowledge creation and transfer
13 Conclusion
14 About the authors
15 References
17 Footnotes

The IBM Institute for Knowledge-Based Organizations found this scenario to be increasingly
common. Usually, when thinking of where people go for information, databases or other
sources of information, such as policy and procedure manuals come to mind. However,
a significant, yet often overlooked component of people’s information environments are com-
posed of the relationships that they use for information and knowledge capture.2
One study
demonstrated that people are roughly five times more likely to turn to friends or colleagues
for answers than other sources of information such as a database or file cabinet.3
Our own
research with 40 managers revealed that 85 percent claimed to receive knowledge critical to
the successful completion of an important project from other people. Although these managers
did employ the organization’s knowledge base, it was often only to supplement knowledge
they had acquired from other people. This, despite the fact that their organization had a
leading-edge technical platform and institutionalized practices for capturing, screening and
archiving codified knowledge.
In short, who you know has a significant impact on what you come to know. Many people we
work with have discovered the importance of attending to the human element in knowledge-
management programs and are initiating various programs to facilitate knowledge creation and
use. Although we can design programs to enhance organizational learning, knowledge transfer
or innovation, it is often difficult to understand the impact of such interventions. We have
found social network analysis (SNA)—a set of tools for mapping important knowledge relation-
ships between people or departments—to be particularly helpful for improving collaboration,
knowledge creation and knowledge transfer in organizational settings.
In management, growth of the social network discipline has been aided by three important
developments in the business world: Firstly, is the discovery of the importance of the informal
structure within an organization, that coexists with the formal structure of an organization.
Even in the most bureaucratic organizations, individuals have always interacted with each
other in a myriad of ways not specified by the organization chart. Secondly, is the shift in
the late 20th century to an organizational model that is flatter, more flexible, team-oriented
and more reliant on knowledge assets. With this shift to more-organic, network-like structures,
comes a need to understand how these structures work and how to manage them. Thirdly, is
the rapid growth in close cooperative relationships across organizational boundaries—outsourcing,
joint ventures, alliances, multiorganizational project work, and so on. Virtual organizations
generate a host of new management issues about how to manage work in the absence of
strict reporting relationships.

In this context, network analysis shows considerable promise for helping organizations handle
a number of classic situations, including:
• Leader selection—Who is central in the trust and respect network?
• Task force selection—How do we put together a team that is maximally connected through-
out the organization?
• Mergers and acquisition—It’s not just two cultures merging, it’s two separate networks.
Social network analysis and knowledge
Social network analysis allows managers to visualize and understand the myriad of relationships
that can either facilitate or impede knowledge creation and transfer. How does information
flow within an organization? To whom do people turn for advice? Have subgroups emerged
that are not sharing what they know as effectively as they should? These are questions that
can often be answered through analysis of a social network diagram—a map of individuals
and the social ties that link them together. The key feature of these diagrams lies with in
the pattern of relationships displayed and the relative position of individuals (or groups)
to each other.
For example, the IBM Institute for Knowledge-Based Organizations conducted an SNA of
executives in the exploration and production division of a large petroleum organization. This
group was in the midst of implementing a distributed technology to help transfer knowledge
across drilling initiatives. They were also interested in assessing their ability to create and
share knowledge as a group. As a result, we were asked to conduct a SNA of information
flow among the top 20 executives within the exploration and production division. As can be
seen in Figure 1, this analysis revealed a striking contrast between the group’s formal and
informal structure.

Figure 1: Formal vs. informal structure in a petroleum organization.4
Exploration & Production
Senior Vice President
Jones
Drilling
Taylor
Exploration
Williams
Production
Stock
G&G
Cohen
Reservoir
Shapiro
Petrophysical
Cross
Petrophysical
Cross
Production
O’Brien
Smith SenAndrews Paine
Hughes Moore
Ramirez Miller
Bell
Cole
Hussain
Kelly
O’Brien
Stock
Shapiro Paine
ColeCohen Jones
Kelly
Andrews
MillerHughes
Ramirez
Smith
Cross
Williams
Hussain
Bell
Taylor
SenMoore
Informal organizational
structure of exploration and
production division
Formal organizational
structure of exploration and
production division

Three important points emerged quickly for this group in relation to sharing information and
effectively leveraging collective expertise. First, the SNA identified mid-level managers that
were critical, in terms of information flow within the group. A particular surprise came from
the very central role that Cole played in terms of both overall information flow within the
group and being the only point of contact between members of the production division and the
rest of the network. A facilitated session with this executive team revealed that over time, Cole’s
reputation for expertise and responsiveness had resulted in his becoming a critical source for
all sorts of information. Through no fault of his own, the number of informational requests
he received and the number of projects in which he was involved grew excessively, which
not only caused him stress but also frequently slowed the group down as a whole because
Cole had become a bottleneck.
As a result, a central intervention that came from this analysis was to reallocate many of
the informational requests that were coming to Cole to other members in the group. Simply
categorizing various informational requests that Cole received and then allocating ownership of
these informational or decision domains to other executives served to both unburden Cole and
make the overall network more responsive and robust.
Just as importantly, the SNA helped to identify highly peripheral people who essentially
represented untapped expertise and thus, underutilized resources for the group. In particular,
it became apparent that many of the senior people had become too removed from the day-
to-day operations of this group. For example, Figure 1 reveals that the most-senior person
(Jones) was one of the most peripheral in the informal network. This is a common finding:
As people move higher within an organization, their work begins to entail more administrative
tasks, which makes them both less accessible and knowledgeable about the daily work of their
subordinates. In this case, our debrief session indicated that Jones had become too removed
from the group and his lack of responsiveness frequently held the entire network back when
important decisions needed to be made. Fortunately, the social network diagram helped to
make a potentially difficult conversation with this executive nonconfrontational and resulted in
more of his time being committed back to the group.

Finally, the SNA also demonstrated the extent to which the production division (the subgroup
on the top of the diagram) had become separated from the overall network. Several months
prior to this analysis, these people had been physically moved to a different floor in the
building. Upon reviewing the network diagram, many of the executives realized that this
physical separation had resulted in the loss of a lot of the serendipitous meetings that occurred
when they were separated. In this case, the executives decided that they needed to introduce
more structured meetings to compensate for this recent loss of unplanned communication.
They also adopted an instant messaging system to promote communication.
Analysis of social network diagrams helps determine the extent to which certain people
are central to the effective functioning of a network, regardless of whether or not divisive
subgroups in a network exist or what the overall connection of a given network is. Things
to look for in SNA:
• Bottlenecks—Central nodes that provide the only connection between different parts of the
network.
• Number of links—Insufficient or excessive links between departments that must coordinate
effectively.
• Average distance—Degrees of separation connecting all pairs of nodes in the group.
Short distances transmit information accurately and in a timely way, while long distances
transmit slowly and can distort the information.
• Isolation—People that are not integrated well into a group and therefore, represent both
untapped skills and a high likelihood of turnover.
• Highly expert people—Not being utilized appropriately.
• Organizational subgroups or cliques—Can develop their own subcultures and negative
attitudes toward other groups.

A knowledge-based network
In our research, we learned that it was important to look at social networks from more than a
simple communication or information-flow perspective. The interventions we find effective in
improving specific networks of people often have more to do with helping groups know what
the others know and ensuring safety and access among people. With this realization, we began
to focus less on communication and more on the knowledge-based dimensions of relationships
that make them useful in sharing and creating knowledge. Specifically, we interviewed 40
managers about key relationships on which they relied for information or advice. We found that
four dimensions tended to be critical for a relationship to be effective, in terms of knowledge
creation and use:
• Knowing what someone knows
• Gaining timely access to that person
• Creating viable knowledge through cognitive engagement
• Learning from a safe relationship.
Knowing what someone knows. In deciding whether or not to seek out an individual for informa-
tion or advice, a person must have some perception of the relevance of the other person’s
knowledge, skills and abilities in relation to the current problem. Although this perception
might be wrong or biased by a variety of factors, it is still the basis for deciding to whom to
turn for information or advice on a given problem. Thus, understanding how well members of
a group know each others’ knowledge skills and abilities is a first step to understanding how
effective they are in terms of knowledge sharing and creation.
Gaining timely access to that person. Simply believing someone has relevant knowledge does not
necessarily result in a contact facilitating knowledge creation. Gaining access to that person’s
thinking in a sufficiently timely fashion is requisite as well. To some extent, access is a
product of the social fabric of an organization and influenced by power inhering in positions of
formal authority or informal structure.5
Access is also influenced by the physical and technical
environment, as impediments to people being able to connect dramatically reduces the
likelihood of their being consulted. For example, Tom Allen’s work poignantly demonstrates
the striking relationship between physical proximity and likelihood of collaboration in a
knowledge-intensive environment.6
Thus, a second dimension of importance is to assess the
extent to which people have access to each other’s thinking.

Creating viable knowledge through cognitive engagement. Of course, access alone does not ensure
effective knowledge transfer or creation. One way people can distinguish themselves from a
file cabinet or database in terms of knowledge transfer and creation is by actively helping
other people think through problems they are trying to solve. In turning to others for
information or advice, people who are willing to first understand the other person’s issue and
then actively shape their knowledge to the problem are more helpful in terms of knowledge
creation. This often stands in stark contrast to those people who simply dump information
without taking the time to actively engage in problem solving. As one manager we interviewed
stated: “I have been around people who give you a quick spiel because they think they are
smart and that by throwing some framework or angle up they can quickly wow you and get
out of the hard work of solving a problem. Mike, for all his other responsibilities and stature
is not like that. He helps you think about a problem.” Thus, a third dimension of importance
to assessing networks is in the extent to which people will actively engage with others in
helping them solve problems.
Learning from a safe relationship. Finally, relationships have properties that affect the degree
of learning or creativity emerging from interactions. When a person asks another person for
information, they inherently become vulnerable because “help seeking implies incompetence
and dependence, and therefore is related to powerlessness.”7
To ask for information is to give
power to someone—trust that this power will not be employed against you is an important
precursor to deciding to engage with someone. One’s trust in another shapes the extent to
which they will be forthcoming about their lack of knowledge and helps reduce defensive
behaviors that can knowingly and unknowingly block learning, at both the individual and
group levels.8
Further, relationships characterized by a degree of safety or trust also provide
room for exploration or creativity in interaction.9
Relationships characterized as safe or secure
improve knowledge creation by allowing room for creativity and learning. As a result, safety
is a dimension of importance to analyze in investigating a network’s knowledge creation and
sharing potential.

AG
AB
BB
BD
BJ
JJ
KS
II
CC
DD
DF
FG
GC
GH
GJ
HN
HD
AL
CK
BI
LK
LA
LK
LJ
MG
MT
RM
MS
SJ
LA
SS
SA
RR
WB
WD
RS
TA
A network view of knowledge relationships
By applying these dimensions to important groups of people within an organization, we can
better analyze and intervene in critical points of knowledge creation and sharing. The four
key dimensions can be viewed separately to illustrate different aspects of a network, but they
can also be examined cumulatively. For example, it can be very illuminating to look at how
the network of relationships changes, based on the specific relationship being mapped (that is,
knowledge, access, engagement or safety). Further, it can also be instructive to analyze how the
pattern of relationships changes when we multiply these relationships together. For example,
IBM analyzed these four dimensions across a group of 37 Information Scientists in a large
pharmaceutical firm. The objectives were to:
• Analyze their understanding of each other’s knowledge, skills, and abilities to evaluate the
overall cohesion of the group (see Figure 2)—the “know” network.
• Identify the central people in their network to understand which skills and knowledge are
most influential in this group in terms of knowledge creation and use.
• Assess those that are not well connected in the network, because these people probably
represent underutilized assets.
• Analyze the network to highlight ties between people who support all four dimensions
of a knowledge sharing relationship (see Figure 3)—the Know x Access x Engage x
Safety Network.
Figure 2: Knowing what someone knows is only half the battle.
Source: IBM Institute for Knowledge-Based Organizations.
The most-central people
in the “know” network
were LK, BJ, KS and BI.

The first thing to note about this network, in general, is that it is cohesive—in other words,
there are no subgroups which are split off from the larger group. This is often a healthy
sign in networks, because factions that have become separated from the overall network
often represent untapped human resources and, in worst-case scenarios, can reflect political
problems. The most-central people in the “know” network were LK, BJ, KS and BI. In
contrast, there are various people around the edges of the network who have only three or four
connections. These are the people who represent underutilized knowledge for this group.
Finally, when we look across all four dimensions (see Figure 3), six people (LK, BI, KS, LA,
RR and SJ, in order of importance) emerged as central to this group. They were not the
same group of people as we found in the “know” network analysis. LK has remained the
most-influential person in the group and we have added LA, RR and SJ to this list. Now,
BJ no longer remains a central member of this group, most likely because BJ was the head
of the group and, due to time constraints, was not always accessible to everyone.
BIBI
SJ
Pajek
AG
AB
BB
BD
BJ
JJ
KS
II
CC
DD
DF
FG
GC
GH
GJ
HNHD
AL
CK
LK
LA
LK
LJ
MG
MT
RM
MS
LA
SS
SA
RR
WB
WD
RS
TA
Figure 3. Network as viewed across all four dimensions.
Source: IBM Institute for Knowledge-Based Organizations.
It is also interesting to note that in the bottom left of Figure 3 is a subgroup of 10 people who
have become almost completely separated from the main network. Without the relationship
to LK and BJ, this subgroup would be largely disconnected from the main network. The
existence of such a subgroup implies an inefficiency in knowledge utilization: members of
the subgroup are not utilizing the expertise of the main group, and conversely. In solving
problems, both groups could be drawing on a larger pool of talent.
By looking at the network with four dimensions, it is possible to determine which factor is the
most common impediment to knowledge sharing (for example, is it knowing what we know,
being accessible to each other, and so on?). Once this factor is identified, it is possible to target
interventions in order to improve overall collaboration.

Improving a network’s capacity for knowledge creation and transfer
Social network analysis provides a set of tools and a way of representing networks that afford
certain interventions not possible through standard cultural surveys or snowball interviewing
techniques. For example, while culture surveys may indicate that the organizational climate
does not support knowledge sharing, SNA is a more detailed analysis, specifically pointing to
who shares knowledge with whom. More importantly, this increase in precision offers specific
ways to influence a network’s ability to create and share knowledge. The following section lists
several interventions we have found helpful in promoting the collaborative ability of a network.
Social network analysis maps take on a life of their own when they represent your own
relationships with your colleagues. Simply asking people to spend five minutes, either on their
own or in groups of two or three, to identify what they “see” in the map, the structural issues
impeding or facilitating group effectiveness, and the performance implications for the group
is an extremely effective intervention.
Linking technologies. Although certainly not a cure all, there are various opportunities to employ
distributed technologies to help connect people. Many organizations have recently begun to
leverage online communities of practice and other divergent forums to allow individuals to
engage relevant experts with a problem. These divergent forums allow employees to pose
“Does anybody know?” kinds of questions to a group of relevant experts. Such forums are
often very effective in bringing the collective intellect of a community to bear on a given
problem, if an organization has found some way to reward sharing behavior. For example, at
Buckman Laboratories, the National Sales Manager in Australia was scheduled to submit a bid
to a major paper mill that wanted one company to supply products for both machine hygiene
and alkaline fine paper. Unfortunately, the National Sales Manager had limited experience
with alkaline fine paper. In order to get some assistance, the manager decided to post his
question on the intranet forum. Within 48 hours, 36 detailed responses were posted from
other Buckman employees around the world. The responses from the other employees allowed
him to prepare a successful presentation, which ultimately awarded the bid to his company.10
However, there are often problem scenarios in knowledge-based work where there is no clearly
defined question or problem—as in the beginning of a project. In these settings, individuals
need to be able to contact specific others within organizations. It is in response to this need
that many organizations are developing corporate “yellow pages” or skill profiles of employees.
For example, at Microsoft®
they have constructed a database of core competencies for all their
employees within the information systems group. “The project objective is to improve the
matching of employees to jobs and work teams.”11

Multidimensionality of knowledge. It is easy to analyze a group and find that its members are
often not communicating effectively, but simply proposing that communication needs to be
better does not help the group understand how to make communication more effective. By
analyzing the four aspects of relationships underlying effective information flow—knowledge,
access, engagement and safety (see Table 1)—we can offer precise technical and social
“interventions” to improve a network’s ability to share and create knowledge, without necessar-
ily requiring more meetings.
Aspects
Knowledge
Objectives
• Increase awareness of who
knows what and who is working
on what within the company
Technical interventions
• Skill profiling system
• Corporate yellow pages
Social interventions
• Communities of practice
• Thematic help desks manned by
knowledge-area specialists
• Knowledge fairs
Access • Add speed of access to
knowledge sharing
• Target accessibility as a
critical behavior
• E-mail
• Cell phones
• Peer feedback forums
• Periodic SNA
Engagement • Increase ease of interaction,
add a dimension to more-
conventional communication
that engages people
• Enhanced performance
• Increased awareness of skills,
abilities and knowledge of
co-workers
• Synchronous technologies
(such as Lotus®
Sametime®
or AOL Instant Messenger)
• White boarding applications
• Video conferencing
• Peer reviews
Safety • Allow safe relationships to
develop over time
• Increase visibility of relationships
that are not safe so they can be
discussed by the group
• Any form of communication
technology used throughout
the company
• Face-to-face interactions
such as work sessions or
“brown bag” lunches
• SNA
Table 1. Multidimensionality of knowledge.

Conclusion
A critical resource embedded within organizations is the knowledge that highly skilled workers
bring to work on a day-to-day basis. However, aside from human resource policies targeted
at the attraction, development and retention of skilled knowledge workers, there has been
little effort put into systematic ways of leveraging knowledge that is embedded in people
and relationships. Given the extent to which people rely on their own knowledge and the
knowledge of their contacts to solve problems, this is a significant shortcoming. Social network
analysis allows us to understand how a given network of people create and share knowledge,
helping us to move beyond this approach.
By offering specific dimensions of importance on which to assess these networks, we have
made the application of SNA more useful in many ways. If we only look at an advice network
and find that there are not many ties existing in an important community, the bulk of our
recommendations are going to entail various forms of additional meetings—not something most
organizations desire. However, if we break up this network into the dimensions of knowledge,
access, safety and engagement, we have a more-precise view of how to help this network.
At IBM, we would welcome the opportunity to help your business analyze, build and
strengthen its social networks. Our SNA consultants can pinpoint potential bottlenecks,
underutilizations, misutilizations and hindrances and suggest alternative strategies. If you
would like to explore how we might put our experience and creativity to work for you, please
contact us at bva@us.ibm.com. To browse through other resources for business executives,
we invite you to visit:
ibm.com/services/strategy

About the authors
Rob Cross is an Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia’s McIntire School of Commerce
In Charlottesville, VA and a research fellow with the IBM Institute for Knowledge-Based
Organizations (IKO). Rob can be contacted at robcross@virginia.edu.
Andrew Parker is a Consultant with the IBM Institute for Knowledge-Based Organizations
(IKO) in Cambridge, MA. Andrew can be contacted at andparke@us.ibm.com.
Steve Borgatti is an Associate Professor at Boston College’s Carroll School of Management.
Steve can be contacted at borgatts@bc.edu.
The IBM Institute for Business Value develops fact-based strategic insights for senior business
executives around critical industry-specific and cross-industry issues. Clients in the Institute’s
member programs—the IBM Business Value Alliance and the IBM Institute for Knowledge-
Based Organizations—benefit from access to in-depth consulting studies, a community of peers,
and dialogue with IBM strategic advisors. These programs help executives realize business value
in an environment of rapid, technology-enabled competitive change. You may contact the author
or send an e-mail to bva@us.ibm.com for more information on these programs.

References
Allen, T. Managing the Flow of Technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977.
Amabile, T. “A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations.” Research in
Organizational Behavior 10 (1988), pp. 123-167.
Argyris, C. Reasoning, Learning and Action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1982.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996.
Astley, G. and Sachdeva, P. “Structural Source of Intraorganizational Power: A Theoretical
Synthesis.” Academy of Management Review 9 (1984), pp. 104-113.
Burkhardt, M. and Brass, D. “Changing Patterns or Patterns of Change: The Effects of
a Change in Technology on Social Network Structure and Power.” Administrative Science
Quarterly 35 (1990), pp. 104-127.
Burt, R. “Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence.”
American Journal of Sociology 92 (1987), pp. 1287-1335.
Burt, R. Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. Society, Culture and Person: A Systems View of Creativity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. Working Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press, 1998.
Edmondson, A. “Learning From Mistakes Is Easier Said Than Done: Group and
Organizational Influences on the Detection and Correction of Human Error.” Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 32 (1) (1996), pp. 5-28.
Fulmer, W. Buckman Laboratories (A). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 1999.
Granovetter, M. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78 (1973), pp.
1360-1380.

Handy, C. The Age of Paradox. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1994.
Ibarra, H. and Andrews, S. “Power, Social Influence and Sensemaking: Effects of Network
Centrality and Proximity on Employee Perceptions.” Administrative Science Quarterly 38
(1993), pp. 277-303.
Lee, F. “When the Going Gets Tough, Do the Tough Ask for Help? Help Seeking and Power
Motivation in Organizations.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72(3)
(1997), pp. 336-363.
Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press, 1995.
Shah, P. “Who Are Employee’s Social Referents? Using a Network Perspective to Determine
Referent Others.” Academy of Management Journal 41(3) (1998), pp. 249-268.
Szulanski, G. “Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice
Within the Firm.” Strategic Management Journal 17(S) (1996), pp. 27-43.
Vaill, P. Managing as a Performing Art: New Ideas for a World of Chaotic Change. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1989.
Woodman, R., Sawyer, J. and Griffin, R. “Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity.”
Academy of Management Review 18 (2) (1993), pp. 293-321.

Footnotes
1
Vaill, 1989; Handy, 1994.
2
Granovetter, 1973; Burt, 1987 and 1992; Rogers, 1995; Szulanski, 1996;
Shah, 1998.
3
Allen, 1977.
4
Names have been changed at the request of the company.
5
Astley & Sachdeva, 1984; Burkhardt & Brass, 1990; Ibarra & Andrews, 1993.
6
Allen, 1977.
7
Lee, 1997: p. 336.
8
Argyris, 1982; Argyris & Schon, 1996; Edmondson, 1996.
9
Amabile, 1988; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993.
10
Fulmer, 1999.
11
Davenport & Prusak, 1998.

G510-1669-00
© Copyright IBM Corporation 2002
IBM Corporation
IBM Global Services
Route100
Somers,NY10589
U.S.A.
Produced in the United States of America
05-02
All Rights Reserved
IBM and the IBM logo are registered
trademarks of International Business Machines
Corporation in the United States,other
countries,or both.
Lotus and Sametime are registered trademarks
of Lotus Development Corporation in the United
States or other countries or both.
Microsoft is a registered trademark of Microsoft
Corporation in the United States,other
countries,or both.
Other company,product and service names
may be trademarks or service marks of others.
References in this publication to IBM products
and services do not imply that IBM intends to
make them available in all countries in which
IBM operates.

+Cross

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to +Cross (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

+Cross