IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aal/abbswp/12-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Decentralization, Social Networks, and Organizational Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Emily Erikson
  • Sampsa Samila

Abstract

Research on the exploration and exploitation of knowledge in organizations suggests that the autonomy of subsidiaries or units encourages innovation. However, that same autonomy potentially discourages the exploitation of innovations through inter-unit communication – suggesting a tradeoff between innovation, associated with exploration, and communication, associated with exploitation. Analyzing data on the operational decisions of captains in the English East India Company, we find that high unit autonomy encourages the transfer of information via social networks, whereas centralization depresses the use of social networks. Further, the information transferred via social networks does make its way into the formal knowledge base of the firm.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily Erikson & Sampsa Samila, 2012. "Decentralization, Social Networks, and Organizational Learning," DRUID Working Papers 12-01, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
  • Handle: RePEc:aal:abbswp:12-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://wp.druid.dk/wp/20120001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christina Fang & Jeho Lee & Melissa A. Schilling, 2010. "Balancing Exploration and Exploitation Through Structural Design: The Isolation of Subgroups and Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 625-642, June.
    2. Ranjay Gulati & Phanish Puranam, 2009. "Renewal Through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies Between Formal and Informal Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 422-440, April.
    3. Carlos, Ann M, 1992. "Principal-Agent Problems in Early Trading Companies: A Tale of Two Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(2), pages 140-145, May.
    4. Mikael Holmqvist, 2004. "Experiential Learning Processes of Exploitation and Exploration Within and Between Organizations: An Empirical Study of Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 70-81, February.
    5. Eric D. Darr & Linda Argote & Dennis Epple, 1995. "The Acquisition, Transfer, and Depreciation of Knowledge in Service Organizations: Productivity in Franchises," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(11), pages 1750-1762, November.
    6. Olav Sorenson & Jesper B. Sørensen, 2001. "Finding the right mix: franchising, organizational learning, and chain performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 713-724, June.
    7. Gerald C. Kane & Maryam Alavi, 2007. "Information Technology and Organizational Learning: An Investigation of Exploration and Exploitation Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 796-812, October.
    8. Hejeebu, Santhi, 2005. "Contract Enforcement in the English East India Company," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 496-523, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    2. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    3. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    4. Zhi Yang & Xuemin Zhou & Pengcheng Zhang, 2015. "Discipline versus passion: Collectivism, centralization, and ambidextrous innovation," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 745-769, September.
    5. Claudia Rei, 2013. "Incentives in merchant empires: Portuguese and Dutch compensation schemes," Cliometrica, Journal of Historical Economics and Econometric History, Association Française de Cliométrie (AFC), vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, January.
    6. Dildar Hussain & Josef Windsperger, 2013. "A property rights view of multi-unit franchising," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 169-185, April.
    7. Peter Cappelli & Monika Hamori, 2007. "Are Franchises Bad Employers?," NBER Working Papers 13327, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Gopesh Anand & John Gray & Enno Siemsen, 2012. "Decay, Shock, and Renewal: Operational Routines and Process Entropy in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1700-1716, December.
    9. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2019. "Hybrid Ambidexterity: How the Environment Shapes Incumbents’ Use of Structural and Contextual Approaches," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1319-1348, November.
    10. Josef Windsperger, 2003. "Complementarities and Substitutabilities in Franchise Contracting: Some Results from the German Franchise Sector," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 7(3), pages 291-313, September.
    11. Yang, Der-Yuan, 2008. "On the elements and practices of monitoring," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 654-666, March.
    12. YoungKi Park & Paul A. Pavlou & Nilesh Saraf, 2020. "Configurations for Achieving Organizational Ambidexterity with Digitization," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1376-1397, December.
    13. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda & Bill McKelvey, 2020. "Back to the basics: reconciling the continuum and orthogonal conceptions of exploration and exploitation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 175-206, June.
    14. Dimo Dimov & Pablo Martin de Holan & Hana Milanov, 2012. "Learning patterns in venture capital investing in new industries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 21(6), pages 1389-1426, December.
    15. Lennerts, Silke & Schulze, Anja & Tomczak, Torsten, 2020. "The asymmetric effects of exploitation and exploration on radical and incremental innovation performance: An uneven affair," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 121-134.
    16. Gonzalez, Rodrigo Valio Dominguez & de Melo, Tatiana Massaroli, 2018. "The effects of organization context on knowledge exploration and exploitation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 215-225.
    17. Dirk Martignoni & Thomas Keil & Markus Lang, 2020. "Focus in Searching Core–Periphery Structures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 266-286, March.
    18. Guo, Shiau-Ling, 2023. "The governance implication of the geographic concentration of franchise activities for franchise relationships," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    19. Peter Cappelli & Monika Hamori, 2008. "Are Franchises Bad Employers?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 61(2), pages 147-162, January.
    20. David Gaddis Ross, 2014. "An Agency Theory of the Division of Managerial Labor," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 494-508, April.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aal:abbswp:12-01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Keld Laursen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.druid.dk/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.