Special Issue: Knowledge, Knowing, and Organizations: Action and Possibility: Reconciling Dual Perspectives of Knowledge in Organizations

By Andrew B. Hargadon, Angelo Fanelli. Organ. Sci., 2002

324 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cd2f75ab28da78318fb5551211c35e9a87937d04

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

What do we really mean by the dynamic dimension of intellectual capital (2007, background): “Even though the IC literature tends not to make these connections explicit, the view of dynamic IC as intangible activities is ultimately grounded on an assumption that cognition and action go hand in hand: knowledge is both acquired by and demonstrated in action (Dougherty, 1992; Leonard-Barton, 19”
Intellectual Capital Architectures and Ambidextrous Learning: A Framework for Human Resource Management (2009, background): “By loosely connecting individuals to precedent, rules, and traditional expectations about work, organic organizational capital prescribes the context where individuals create new knowledge (described as ‘knowledge in action’) while applying their knowledge in work (Grant, 1996; Hargadon and Fanelli,”
The influence of supply network structure on firm innovation (2014, background): “The underlying logic is that inventions serve as a way to instantiate knowledge creation [87] and the accumulation of knowledge engrained in inventions is used to facilitate a firm’s processes that generate novel actions from a given set of resources [88].”
Systems of Exchange (2004, background): “For example, in recent years organization analysts, noting the importance of knowledge in a postindustrial economy, have developed classification schemes and typologies that distinguish among knowledge types (Hargadon & Fanelli, 2002; Spender, 1996).”
Internationalising in small, incremental or larger steps? (2007, background): “International experience may also promote the development of new and creative solutions for handling cultures (Hargadon and Fanelli, 2002), increasing the likelihood that the company will discover profitable business opportunities.”
Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge (2011, unknown): “Knowledge is a challenging concept to define and measure, especially at the organizational level of analysis (Hargadon & Fanelli, 2002).”
The Process of Schema Emergence: Assimilation, Deconstruction, Unitization and the Plurality of Analogies (2013, background): “…to important organizational outcomes such as innovation (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997), learning (Neustadt & May, 1986), competitive positioning (Gavetti, Levinthal & Rivkin, 2005), problem solving (Schon, 1993), creativity (Hargadon & Fanelli, 2002), and institutional designs (Etzion & Ferraro, 2010).”
Ready to Be Open? Explaining the Firm-Level Barriers to Benefiting from Openness to External Knowledge (2017, unknown): “From an innovation perspective, external knowledge has the potential to provide the organization with possibilities for novel actions, and the process of constructing novel actions often entails finding new uses or new combinations of disparate ideas (Hargadon and Fanelli, 2002, p. 292).”