In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work
By D. Swanson. 2001
564 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8d872f6dd63e9eac295e64bc287521085db10915
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Sociology and Political Science
- David W. Johnson
- Roger T. Johnson
- Karl A. Smith
- Marjorie A. Lyles
- Julia Storberg
- Fikret Sozbilir
- Marleen Huysman
- L. Andreu
Citations in the corpus
- Knowledge Sharing Among Tourists via Social Media: A Comparison Between Facebook and TripAdvisor (2017, background): “In virtual communities, prior research finds that a shared vision strengthens and cements the members’ network bonds, enabling cooperative actions and benefiting organizations through more frequent and active communication among members (Cohen & Prusak, 2001).”
- IT to support knowledge sharing in communities, towards a social capital analysis (2006, methodology): “Several authors have expressed the importance of acknowledging social capital when investing in KM (e.g. Lesser, 2000) as well as the knowledge benefits derived from high levels of social capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Cohen and Prusak, 2001).”
- Examining the Factors Influencing Participants' Knowledge Sharing Behavior in Virtual Learning Communities (2009, unknown): “Some academicians (Cohen & Prusak, 2001; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Wasko & Faraj, 2005) have attributed such behaviour to social network ties, an important attribute of social capital derived from the Social Capital Theory.”
- Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom‐Based Practices (2005, background): “” 2) Quality of relationships: Tom Boyle of British Telecom calls this the age of interdependence; he speaks of the importance of people’s network quotient, or NQ—their capacity to form connections (relationships) with one another, which, Boyle argues, is now more important than IQ, the measure of i”
- The interaction between social capital, creativity and efficiency in organizations (2018, background): “…creation, cross-functional team effectiveness, influencing career success, good supplier relationships, inter-firm learning and reduce turnover rates (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Cohen & Prusak, 2001; Kraatz, 1998; Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998; Zheng, 2010).”
- Examining contemporary careers: A call for interdisciplinary inquiry (2008, background): “Some (but not all) of the disciples of these ideas have sought to apply them inside single organizations (Cohen & Prusak, 2001; Leana & Van Buren, 1999), anticipating aggregate long-term benefits for the surrounding world.”
- Influences of organizational investments in social capital on service employee commitment and performance (2013, background): “loss (Cohen and Prusak, 2001, p.3).” However, making organizational investments in social capital requires the devotion of significant managerial time and effort to enable and promote appropriate behavioral norms and values. As firms increasingly leverage human capital for competitive advantage, the”
- The Evolution of Capital Theory: A Critique of a Theory of Social Capital and Implications for HRD (2002, background): “Lin would disagree with Cohen and Prusak (2001a, 2001b), who defined social capital as “trust, mutual understanding, and shared values and behaviors” (Cohen & Prusak, 2001a, 2001b, p. 4).”
- Institutional Performance and Social Capital: An Application to the Local Government Level (2005, background): “They have analyzed the internal functioning and performance of (nonprofit) organizations and the creation of such organizations (Cohen & Prusak, 2001; Feeney, 1998; Saxton & Benson, 2005).”
- Managing Tacit and Explicit Knowledge Transfer in Ijvs: The Role of Relational Embeddedness and the Impact on Performance (2004, background): “Relational embeddedness A relationship between actors can be characterized in terms of the strength of their social ties, their level of trust, and the extent to which they share common processes and values (Kale et al., 2000; Cohen and Prusak, 2001).”