Organization and Knowledge Management
Egocentric viewpoint on social network denotes connections, which every person has with each other. A person’s social capital is distinguished with their direct relationship or connection with others, as well as connections that can be attained via direct ties (Sandefur, Rebecca & Edward 1998). The socio-centric approach posits that the social capital depends on an individual’s relative position in a given network, instead of a person’s direct relationship with individuals within the network. For instance, in an organization with people of software testers and software developers, there are dense of network in every group having multiple connections with one another. Information may freely within, though not across the two groups (Burt 1997). Putnam approach with social capital denotes a norm of reciprocity. One does things with an expectation that a favor be returned (Putnam 1993). In the Goshal approach, common language encourages possibility of accessing other individuals and their information, thus, aiding interactions. However, different code and language restricts interaction among people.
Social capital is significant or needed because it is a public good. None owns social capital individually, in contrast, it is owned by every member within the network. Consequently, all can enjoy the use of social capital. Moreover, social capital is never located within the actors; instead, it is located within their connections with other actors. Therefore, social capital is needed for the satisfaction of every member within the community.
Connection between Organizational Knowledge and Social Capital
Organizational knowledge is considered either tacit or explicit. Therefore, social capital is significant in the effective management of tacit and explicit knowledge. Social capital (SC) has a crucial role about maintaining and managing knowledge base. The encouragement for people to contribute to, as well as reuse explicit knowledge base, relies on social capital of individuals using such system. For instance, the level to which information or documents are shared among individuals relies on the perceived value, obligation, and trusts one has with others (Woolcock 2011, p. 17).
Reference List
Burt, R 1997, ‘The Cognitive Value of Social Capital’ Administrative Science Quarterly,vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 340.
Putnam, R, D 1993, ‘The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life’ The American prospect, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 37.
Sandefur, Rebecca & Edward, O 1998, ‘A paradigm for social capital’ Rationality and Society, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 484.
Woolcock, M 2011, ‘The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes’, Isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-17.
