1932

Abstract

Knowledge transfer—the extent to which one unit learns from or is affected by the experience of another—has the potential to improve the performance of organizations. Through knowledge transfer, developments made in one unit of an organization can benefit others. Studies have found, however, considerable variation in the extent to which knowledge transfers across organizational units. In some cases, knowledge transfers seamlessly, whereas in others, knowledge transfer is far from complete. This article reviews research with the aim of explaining the variation observed in knowledge transfer. Key factors identified as explaining the variation include knowledge transfer opportunities, knowledge characteristics, mechanisms for knowledge transfer, motivation for transfer, and the depth of consideration of knowledge. These factors are integrated into a theoretical framework that predicts when knowledge transfer will be successful. The article concludes with a discussion of directions for future research to increase our understanding of knowledge transfer in organizations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-105424
2024-01-18
2024-04-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/75/1/annurev-psych-022123-105424.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-105424&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Agrawal A. 2001. University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 3:4285–302
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson JR, Reder LM. 1979. An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. Levels of Processing in Human Memory LS Cermak, FIM Craik 385–403. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Argote L. 2013. Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge New York: Springer. , 2nd ed..
  4. Argote L, Darr ED 2000. Repositories of knowledge in franchise organizations: individual, structural and technological. Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities G Dosi, R Nelson, S Winter 51–68. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Argote L, Fahrenkopf E. 2016. Knowledge transfer in organizations: the roles of members, tasks, tools, and networks. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 136:146–59
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Argote L, Guo J, Park S-S, Hahl O. 2022. The mechanisms and components of knowledge transfer: the virtual special issue on knowledge transfer within organizations. Organ. Sci. 33:31232–49
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Argote L, Ingram P. 2000. Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 82:1150–69
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Argote L, Kane AA. 2009. Superordinate identity and knowledge creation and transfer in organizations. Knowledge Governance N Foss, S Michaelova 166–91. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Argote L, Lee S, Park J. 2021. Organizational learning processes and outcomes: major findings and future research directions. Manag. Sci. 67:95399–429
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Argote L, Levine JM, eds. 2020. The Oxford Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  11. Argote L, McEvily B, Reagans R. 2003. Managing knowledge in organizations: an integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Manag. Sci. 49:4571–82
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ashforth BE, Mael F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14:120–39
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Baum JAC, Ingram P. 1998. Survival-enhancing learning in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1980. Manag. Sci. 44:7996–1016
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bechky BA. 2003. Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organ. Sci. 14:3312–30
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Beckman CM, Lee HJ. 2020. Social comparison and learning from others. See Argote & Levine 2020 337–52
  16. Berry DC, Broadbent DE. 1984. On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 36:2209–31
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Berry DC, Broadbent DE. 1987. The combination of explicit and implicit learning processes in task control. Psychol. Res. 49:7–15
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Blume BD, Ford JK, Baldwin TT, Huang JL. 2010. Transfer of training: a meta-analytic review. J. Manag. 36:41065–105
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Borgatti SP, Cross R. 2003. A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Manag. Sci. 49:4432–45
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bresman H. 2010. External learning activities and team performance: a multimethod field study. Organ. Sci. 21:181–96
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Brewer MB. 1979. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychol. Bull. 86:2307–24
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Brynjolfsson E, Mitchell T. 2017. What can machine learning do? Workforce implications. Science 358:63701530–34
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Bunderson JS, Reagans RE. 2011. Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organ. Sci. 22:51182–94
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Bunderson JS, Sanner B. 2020. How and when can social hierarchy promote learning in groups?. See Argote & Levine 2020 535–50
  25. Bunderson JS, Van der Vegt GS, Sparrowe RT. 2013. Status inertia and member replacement in role-differentiated teams. Organ. Sci. 25:157–72
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Burt RS. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  27. Carlile PR, Rebentisch ES. 2003. Into the black box: the knowledge transformation cycle. Manag. Sci. 49:91180–95
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Choi H-S, Levine JM. 2004. Minority influence in work teams: the impact of newcomers. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40:2273–80
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Clark N. 2007. Turnaround effort is challenging at Airbus, a stew of European cultures. New York Times May 18
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Q. 35:1128–52
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Connelly CF, Zweig D, Webster J, Trougakos JP. 2012. Knowledge hiding in organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 33:64–88
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Cramton CD. 2001. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ. Sci. 12:3346–71
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Cross R, Baird L. 2000. Technology is not enough: improving performance by building organizational memory. Sloan Manag. Rev. Spring:69–78
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Cummings JN. 2004. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Manag. Sci. 50:3352–64
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Cyert RM, March JG. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
  36. D'Adderio L. 2014. The replication dilemma unravelled: how organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organ. Sci. 25:51325–50
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Dahlin KB, Chuang Y-T, Roulet TJ. 2018. Opportunity, motivation, and ability to learn from failures and errors: review, synthesis, and ways to move forward. Acad. Manag. Ann. 12:1252–77
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Darr ED, Argote L, Epple D. 1995. The acquisition, transfer, and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: productivity in franchises. Manag. Sci. 41:111750–62
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Darr ED, Kurtzberg T. 2000. An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on knowledge transfer. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 82:128–44
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Davenport T, Prusak L. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know Boston, MA: Harvard Bus. Sch. Press
  41. De Dreu CKW, Nijstad BA, van Knippenberg D. 2008. Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 12:122–49
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Deutsch M. 1949. An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group process. Hum. Relat. 2:3199–231
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Edmondson AC. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Admin. Sci. Q. 44:2350–83
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Edmondson AC, Bohmer RM, Pisano GP. 2001. Disrupted routines: team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Admin. Sci. Q. 46:4685–716
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Egelman CD, Epple D, Argote L, Fuchs ER. 2017. Learning by doing in multiproduct manufacturing: variety, customizations, and overlapping product generations. Manag. Sci. 63:2405–23
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ellemers N, De Gilder D, Haslam SA. 2004. Motivating individuals and groups at work: a social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 29:3459–78
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Ellemers N, Spears R, Doosje B. 1999. Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  48. Epple D, Argote L, Murphy K. 1996. An empirical investigation of the microstructure of knowledge acquisition and transfer through learning by doing. Oper. Res. 44:177–86
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Fahrenkopf E, Guo J, Argote L. 2020. Personnel mobility and organizational performance: the effects of specialist versus generalist experience and organization work structure. Organ. Sci. 31:61601–20
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Faraj S, Johnson SL. 2011. Network exchange patterns in online communities. Organ. Sci. 22:61464–80
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Feldman MS, Pentland BT. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Admin. Sci. Q. 48:194–118
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Galbraith CS. 1990. Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high technology firms. Calif. Manag. Rev. 32:456–70
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Gentner D. 1983. Structure mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cogn. Sci. 7:155–70
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Gibson CB, Gibbs JL. 2006. Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Admin. Sci. Q. 51:3451–95
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Gick ML, Holyoak KJ. 1983. Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cogn. Psychol. 15:1–38
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Granovetter MS. 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78:61360–80
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Gray JV, Siemsen E, Vasudeva G. 2015. Colocation still matters: conformance quality and the interdependence of R&D and manufacturing in the pharmaceutical industry. Manag. Sci. 61:112760–81
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Greenaway KH, Wright RG, Willingham J, Reynolds KJ, Haslam SA. 2015. Shared identity is key to effective communication. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41:2171–82
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Greve HR. 2003. Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback: A Behavioral Perspective on Innovation and Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  60. Greve HR, Gaba V. 2020. Performance feedback in organizations and groups: common themes. See Argote & Levine 2020 315–36
  61. Gruenfeld DH, Martorana PV, Fan ET. 2000. What do groups learn from their worldliest members? Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 82:145–59
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Gupta A, Hoopes DG, Knott AM. 2015. Redesigning routines for replication. Strateg. Manag. J. 36:6851–71
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Haas MR, Hansen MT. 2007. Different knowledge, different benefits: toward a productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations. Strateg. Manag. J. 28:111133–53
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Håkonsson DD, Eskildsen JK, Argote L, Mønster D, Burton RM, Obel B. 2016. Exploration versus exploitation: emotions and performance as antecedents and consequences of team decisions. Strateg. Manag. J. 37:6985–1001
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Hansen MT. 1999. The search transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Admin. Sci. Q. 44:182–111
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Hargadon A, Sutton RI. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Admin. Sci. Q. 42:4716–49
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Haslam SA. 2001. Psychology in Organizations: The Social Identity Approach London: SAGE
  68. Hatch NW, Mowery DC. 1998. Process innovation and learning by doing in semiconductor manufacturing. Manag. Sci. 44:11, Pt. 11461–77
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Hewstone M, Rubin M, Willis H. 2002. Intergroup bias. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53:575–604
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Hogg MA, Turner JC. 1985. Interpersonal attraction, social identification and psychological group formation. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 15:51–66
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Huckman RS, Pisano GP. 2006. The firm specificity of individual performance: evidence from cardiac surgery. Manag. Sci. 52:4473–88
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Hwang EH, Singh PV, Argote L. 2015. Knowledge sharing in online communities: learning to cross geographic and hierarchical boundaries. Organ. Sci. 26:61593–611
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Inkpen A. 2008. Knowledge transfers and international joint ventures: the case of Nummi and General Motors. Strateg. Manag. J. 29:447–53
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Irwin DA, Klenow PJ. 1994. Learning-by-doing spillovers in the semiconductor industry. J. Political Econ. 102:61200–27
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Kalnins A, Chung W. 2006. Social capital, geography, and survival: Gujarati immigrant entrepreneurs in the US lodging industry. Manag. Sci. 52:2233–47
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Kalnins A, Mayer KJ. 2004. Franchising, ownership, and experience: a study of pizza restaurant survival. Manag. Sci. 50:121716–28
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Kane AA. 2010. Unlocking knowledge transfer potential: knowledge demonstrability and superordinate social identity. Organ. Sci. 21:3643–60
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Kane AA, Argote L, Levine JM. 2005. Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 96:156–71
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Kane AA, Rink F. 2020. Personnel movement as a mechanism for learning in organizations and teams. See Argote & Levine 2020 355–64
  80. Kim CM, Cunningham C, Joseph J. 2023. Corporate proximity and product market reentry: the role of corporate headquarters in business unit response to product failure. Acad. Manag. J. 66:1209–32
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Kim SH, Mukhopadhyay T, Kraut RE. 2016. When does repository KMS use lift performance? The role of alternative knowledge sources and task environments. MIS Q 40:1133–56
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Knott AM. 2003. The organizational routines factor market paradox. Strateg. Manag. J. 24:10929–43
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Knott AM. 2020. Learning in chains and what we can learn from it. See Argote & Levine 2020 551–62
  84. Kogut B, Zander U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. 3:3383–97
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Kolympiris C, Hoenen S, Klein PG. 2019. Learning by seconding: evidence from National Science Foundation rotators. Organ. Sci. 30:3528–51
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Larson JR, Egan AC. 2020. Information sharing within groups in organizations: situational and motivational influences. See Argote & Levine 2020 127–54
  87. Laughlin PR, Ellis AL. 1986. Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22:3177–89
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Laureiro-Martínez D, Brusoni S, Canessa N, Zollo M. 2015. Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: an fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 36:3319–38
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Lee S. 2019. Learning-by-moving: Can reconfiguring spatial proximity between organizational members promote individual level exploration?. Organ. Sci. 30:3467–88
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Lee S, Puranam P. 2017. Incentive redesign and collaboration in organizations: evidence from a natural experiment. Strateg. Manag. J. 38:122333–52
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Lester RK, McCabe MJ. 1993. The effect of industrial structure on learning by doing in nuclear plant operation. RAND J. Econ. 24:418–38
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Levin DZ, Cross R. 2004. The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Manag. Sci. 50:111477–90
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Levin DZ, Kurtzberg TR, Phillips KW, Lount RB. 2010. The role of affect in knowledge transfer. Group Dyn 14:2123–42
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Levin DZ, Walter J, Murnighan JK. 2011. Dormant ties: the value of reconnecting. Organ. Sci. 22:4923–39
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Levitt B, March JG. 1988. Organizational learning. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 14:319–38
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Liang DW, Moreland R, Argote L. 1995. Group versus individual training and group performance: the mediating role of transactive memory. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 21:4384–93
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Lomi A, Lusher D, Pattison PE, Robins G. 2014. The focused organization of advice relations: a study in boundary crossing. Organ. Sci. 25:2438–57
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Mackie DM, Worth LT, Asuncion AG. 1990. Processing of persuasive in-group messages. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58:5812–22
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Malhotra A, Majchrzak A. 2012. How virtual teams use their virtual workspace to coordinate knowledge. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 3:11–14
    [Google Scholar]
  100. March JG, Simon HA. 1958. Organizations New York: Wiley
  101. Mawdsley JK, Somaya D. 2016. Employee mobility and organizational outcomes: an integrative conceptual framework and research agenda. J. Manag. 42:185–113
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Menon T, Thompson L, Choi H-S. 2006. Tainted knowledge versus tempting knowledge: People avoid knowledge from internal rivals and seek knowledge from external rivals. Manag. Sci. 52:81129–44
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Miner AS, Haunschild PR. 1995. Population level learning. Res. Organ. Behav. 17:115–66
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Myers CG. 2018. Coactive vicarious learning: toward a relational theory of vicarious learning in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 43:4610–34
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Myers CG. 2021. Performance benefits of reciprocal vicarious learning in teams. Acad. Manag. J. 64:3926–47
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Myers CG. 2022. Storytelling as a tool for vicarious learning among air medical transport crews. Admin. Sci. Q. 67:2378–422
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Naumovska I, Gaba V, Greve HR. 2021. The diffusion of differences: a review and reorientation of 20 years of diffusion research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 15:2377–405
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Nayak P, Ketteringham J. 1986. Breakthroughs New York: Rawson Assoc.
  109. Nonaka I. 1991. The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Bus. Rev. 69:696–104
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Ocasio W, Rhee L, Milner D. 2020. Attention, knowledge, and organizational learning. See Argote & Levine 2020 81–94
  111. Posen HE, Keil T, Kim S, Meissner FD 2018. Renewing research on problemistic search—a review and research agenda. Acad. Manag. Ann. 12:1208–251
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Posen HE, Ross J-M, Wu B, Benigni S, Cao Z. 2023. Reconceptualizing imitation: implications for dynamic capabilities, innovation and competitive advantage. Acad. Manag. Ann. 17:74–112
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Puranam P, Maciejovsky B. 2020. Organizational structure and organizational learning. See Argote & Levine 2020 521–34
  114. Quigley NR, Tesluk PE, Locke EA, Bartol KM. 2007. A multilevel investigation of the motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance. Organ. Sci. 18:171–88
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Reagans R, McEvily B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Admin. Sci. Q. 48:2240–67
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Reagans R, Singh PV, Krishnan R. 2015. Forgotten third parties: analyzing the contingent association between unshared third parties, knowledge overlap, and knowledge transfer relationships with outsiders. Organ. Sci. 26:51400–14
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Reagans R, Zuckerman EW. 2001. Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organ. Sci. 12:4502–17
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Reitzig M, Maciejovsky B. 2015. Corporate hierarchy and vertical information flow inside the firm—a behavioral view. Strateg. Manag. J. 36:131979–99
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Rhee L. 2017. Attention biases in social networks. Acad. Manag. Proc. 1: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.12643abstract
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  120. Rivkin JW. 2000. Imitation of complex strategies. Manag. Sci. 46:6824–44
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Schippers MC, Edmondson AC, West MA. 2020. Team reflexivity. See Argote & Levine 2020 175–94
  122. Schulz M. 2001. The uncertain relevance of newness: organizational learning and knowledge flows. Acad. Manag. J. 44:4661–81
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Schwab A. 2007. Incremental organizational learning from multilevel information sources: evidence for cross-level interactions. Organ. Sci. 18:2233–51
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Shamay-Tsoory SG, Mendelsohn A. 2019. Real-life neuroscience: an ecological approach to brain and behavior research. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14:5841–59
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Singley MK, Anderson JR. 1989. The Transfer of Cognitive Skills Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  126. Song H, Tucker AL, Murrell KL, Vinson DR. 2018. Closing the productivity gap: improving worker productivity through public relative performance feedback and validation of best practices. Manag. Sci. 64:62628–49
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Sorenson O, Rivkin JW, Fleming L. 2006. Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Res. Policy 35:7994–1017
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Stadler C, Helfat CE, Verona G. 2021. Transferring knowledge by transferring individuals: innovative technology use and organizational unit performance in multiunit firms. Organ. Sci. 33:1253–74
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Stasser G. 1988. Computer simulation as a research tool: the DISCUSS model of group decision making. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 24:5393–422
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Szulanski G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 17:S227–43
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Szulanski G, Lee S. 2020. Knowledge transfer: barriers, methods, and timing of methods. See Argote & Levine 2020 365–86
  132. Szulanski G, Ringov D, Jensen RJ. 2016. Overcoming stickiness: how the timing of knowledge transfer methods affects transfer difficulty. Organ. Sci. 27:2304–22
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Tanriverdi H. 2005. Information technology relatedness, knowledge management capability, and performance of multibusiness firms. MIS Q 29:2311–34
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Tortoriello M, Reagans R, McEvily B. 2012. Bridging the knowledge gap: the influence of strong ties, network cohesion, and network range on the transfer of knowledge between organizational units. Organ. Sci. 23:41024–39
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Tsai W. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 44:5996–1004
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Tsai W. 2002. Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organ. Sci. 13:2179–90
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Tucker AL, Nembhard IM, Edmondson AC. 2007. Implementing new practices: an empirical study of organizational learning in hospital intensive care units. Manag. Sci. 53:6894–907
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Van de Ven AH, Polley D, Garud R, Venkataraman S. 1999. The Innovation Journey New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  139. Van der Vegt G, Emans B, Van de Vliert E. 1998. Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group Organ. . Manag 23:2124–43
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Van Knippenberg D, De Dreu CKW, Homan AC. 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:61008–22
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Van Knippenberg D, Mell JN. 2020. Team diversity and learning in organizations. See Argote & Levine 2020 475–90
  142. Volberda HW, Foss NJ, Lyles MA. 2010. Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: how to realize its potential in the organization field. Organ. Sci. 21:4931–51
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Walsh MM, Anderson JR. 2011. Modulation of the feedback-related negativity by instruction and experience. PNAS 108:4719048–53
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Wegner DM 1986. Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of group mind. Theories of Group Behavior B Millen, GR Goethals 185–205. New York: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Williams KY, O'Reilly CA 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research. Res. Organ. Behav. 20:77–140
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Winter SG. 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal DJ Teece 159–84. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Winter SG, Szulanski G, Ringov D, Jensen RJ. 2012. Reproducing knowledge: inaccurate replication and failure in franchise organizations. Organ. Sci. 23:3672–85
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Wong SS. 2004. Distal and local group learning: performance trade-offs and tensions. Organ. Sci. 15:6645–56
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Wu L, Kane GC. 2021. Network-biased technical change: how modern digital collaboration tools overcome some biases but exacerbate others. Organ. Sci. 32:2273–92
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Xiao T, Makhija M, Karim S. 2022. A knowledge recombination perspective of innovation: review and new research directions. J. Manag. 48:61724–77
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Zander U, Kogut B. 1995. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: an empirical test. Organ. Sci. 6:176–92
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Zellmer-Bruhn ME. 2003. Interruptive events and team knowledge acquisition. Manag. Sci. 49:4514–28
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-105424
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-022123-105424
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error