1. The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer Daniel Z. Levin Rob Cross Management Science (2004) 2002 Lawrence Erlbaum Best Paper Award

2. Cross gives an Academy talk on the types of advice people get, with a unique data-collection approach Levin—in audience—has been struggling to find a way to test an idea about knowledge transfer and trust from his own recent interviews with managers. Weak Ties: A Story

3. Weak Ties + Trust Levin e-mails Cross with proposal: “Let’s use your approach to test my trust idea.” They exchange papers and offer comments, quickly building trust They begin a “virtual” collaboration

4. What Can We Learn from This Story? Useful knowledge can come from strangers (i.e., really weak ties) You don’t need a strong tie to trust that someone will be benevolent and competent Researchers need to separate out tie strength (structural) from trust (relational).

5. Knowledge in Organizations Knowledge creation and transfer are critical for organizations (Cohen & Levinthal 1990; Kogut & Zander 1992, 1996; Spender 1996; Argote 1999) Knowledge is difficult to transfer, even within organizations (Zander & Kogut 1995; Szulanski 2000) Knowledge transfer, when it occurs, is often based on interpersonal relationships (Pelz & Andrews 1968; Mintzberg 1973; Allen 1977; Cross 2001)

6. Research Question: From Whom Do People Report Getting Useful Knowledge on Important Projects at Work?

7. Current Study 3 Aspects of Knowledge Transfer Structural weak vs. strong ties Relational trust Knowledge tacit vs. explicit Hansen, 1999 Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998 Mayer et al., 1995 Zand, 1972 Zaheer et al., 1998 Nonaka, 1994 Polanyi, 1966 Zander & Kogut, 1995 Szulanski, 1996 Krackhardt, 1992 Ghoshal et al., 1994 Granovetter, 1973

8. Survey Methods Two-stage, critical-incident, egocentric network survey 127 respondents reported on 4 relationships (n=508), response rate=48% Same results in three companies: U.S. drug co., Canadian oil & gas co., U.K. bank Controls: formal structure; demographic similarity; receiver’s own expertise Hierarchical linear modeling for nested data

9. Factor Analysis Survey Item Benevolence Trust Tie Strength Competence Trust Look out for me Avoid damaging me Care about me.91.87.64.08 -.05 -.17.00 -.03.16 Closeness Communication Interaction.05.01 -.03 -.87 -.85 -.84.05 -.04.01 Professional/dedicated Competent/prepared -.05.07 -.02.03.88.75

10. Ruling Out Alternative Explanations Nonwork-related Friendship Availability of Knowledge Source Formal Structure (function, level, project, proximity) Demographic Similarity (age, gender) Factors beyond Source’s Control X X X X X

11. (1) Strong Ties Are Useful… Tie Strength Receipt of Useful Knowledge +

12. (1) Strong Ties Are Useful… …Because They Are Trusted Tie Strength Receipt of Useful Knowledge Competence Trust Benevolence Trust + + + +

13. Tie Strength Receipt of Useful Knowledge Competence Trust Benevolence Trust + + + + – (2) Controlling for Trust, Weak Ties Are Actually More Useful

14. (3) Interaction Effect for Tacitness Tie Strength Receipt of Useful Knowledge Competence Trust Benevolence Trust Competence Is Critical For Tacit Knowledge + + + + + –

15. D.V.=Perceived Receipt of Useful Knowledge VariableEq.1Eq.2Eq.3Eq.4Eq.5 Intercept, controls[controls not reported here ] Tacit Knowledge-.23-.22-.16 Tie Strength.21-.08 Benevolence Trust.20.22 Competence Trust.23.22 Competence*Tacit.05 R 2 =.56.57.69.70.71

16. Contribution… …to org. learning and knowledge lit.: Support for structural-relational-knowledge (SRK) perspective of knowledge transfer …to social network lit.: Weak ties + trust are not only possible but maybe even desirable