ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Purpose – This article attempts to contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the value of social networks, or social capital, within the group process towards group and team performance by exploring the explicit contribution of social capital towards a group or team's performance. Design/methodology/approach – The research views the potential contribution of social capital through the perspective of the resource-based view of organizations, where social capital's unique potential contribution to the organization's competitive advantage is highlighted. Data were collected from undergraduate student-athletes (n=570) from 23 NCAA colleges and universities across the USA using a multiple hierarchical regression analysis. Findings – Results show a significant connection between social capital and team performance. This contribution is above and beyond other input and process variables, such as past team performance. Research limitations/implications – Data were limited to a cross-sectional view of social capital and team performance. Results, however, support past theoretical models where social capital maintains a significant presence in overall group effectiveness. Originality/value – While social capital has been connected to team performance conceptually, few research studies have made this connection explicit. This article provides justification for maintaining social capital as a viable and ubiquitous element to the dynamic group process. Findings here also provide additional support for re-examining social capital as significant contributor to a firm's competitive advantage.
Social capital and team
performance
Aaron W. Clopton
Department of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, USA
Abstract
Purpose This article attempts to contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the value of social
networks, or social capital, within the group process towards group and team performance by
exploring the explicit contribution of social capital towards a group or team’s performance.
Design/methodology/approach – The research views the potential contribution of social capital
through the perspective of the resource-based view of organizations, where social capital’s unique
potential contribution to the organization’s competitive advantage is highlighted. Data were collected
from undergraduate student-athletes (n¼570) from 23 NCAA colleges and universities across the
USA using a multiple hierarchical regression analysis.
Findings Results show a significant connection between social capital and team performance. This
contribution is above and beyond other input and process variables, such as past team performance.
Research limitations/implications Data were limited to a cross-sectional view of social capital
and team performance. Results, however, support past theoretical models where social capital
maintains a significant presence in overall group effectiveness.
Originality/value – While social capital has been connected to team performance conceptually, few
research studies have made this connection explicit. This article provides justification for maintaining
social capital as a viable and ubiquitous element to the dynamic group process. Findings here also
provide additional support for re-examining social capital as significant contributor to a firm’s
competitive advantage.
Keywords Social networks, Team working, Team performance, United States of America,
Group dynamics
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In a diversifying world, the latency of organizational effectiveness is becoming
increasingly difficult to overcome and to manifest itself in successful organizations.
Because of this, the value of resource-efficiency within the organizational context is
also placed at an increasing premium. While physical, and tangible, resources can be
explicitly accounted for within the managerial realm; intangible resources such as
synergy and social networks – are much more intricate. Thus, research efforts have
furthered the exploration into the affective capabilities of the organization, such as
emotional intelligence (e.g. Goleman, 1998) and collective cognitive intelligence (e.g.
Glynn, 1996; Goyal and Akhilesh, 2007). The benefits of the collective affective
intelligence of the organization are often derived from individuals’ satisfaction with
their groups or work teams where these groups are the most frequent level of
categorization within organizations due to their deliberate or emergent
interdependence and subsequent social interaction (Ashforth and Mael, 1989).
Because of the nature of these groupings, a majority of the affective resources of an
organization are invested in groups or teams. This is also while past research has
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm
Social capital
and team
performance
369
Team Performance Management
Vol. 17 No. 7/8, 2011
pp. 369-381
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7592
DOI 10.1108/13527591111182634
suggested that “highly motivated and successful teams are the benchmark of
successful organizations,” (Goyal and Akhilesh, 2007, p. 207). Still, though
advancement has occurred in the understanding of these groups and teams and of
the intricacies of group dynamics and interactions, there is much to be explored, as
researchers have called for a stronger incorporation of social network concepts into
research on team effectiveness (Balkindi and Harrison, 2006). The basis of team
effectiveness has been attributed, in part, to collective efficacy (Gully et al., 2002), and
team-level goals (O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1994). Notably, however, team effectiveness has
also been partly defined by such network-oriented variables as group cohesion (Beal
et al., 2003) and network structure (Balkindi and Harrison, 2006).
Thus, the purpose of this article is to expand on our knowledge of the impact of
social networks upon team effectiveness in a dynamic group setting. To accomplish
this, the quality of social networks will be ascertained through a measure of social
capital, an often-explored notion that is based upon Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998, p.
243) idea that social capital is “the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded
within, available through, and derived from, the network of relationships possessed by
an individual or social unit.” Social capital is also a construct that has been linked with
numerous outcomes of groups and teams, such as with knowledge sharing, learning,
reductions in time requirements and transaction costs, and reduced redundancy (Burt,
1992). Social capital also reduces the probability of opportunism and the cost of
monitoring (Putnam, 2000) while encouraging cooperative behavior and facilitating the
development of new forms of association and innovation (Fukuyama, 1995). However,
no explicit connection has been explored between social capital and team performance,
the current operationalization of group effectiveness and the measure through which
most studies of team effectiveness utilize (Kuo, 2004).
1.1 Teams and social networks
Generally, it is accepted that the quality of the connectedness and interaction of groups
and teams enhances the overall effectiveness of the groups and the organization, as
recent research shows team cohesion connected to performance (Tekleab et al., 2009).
This finding iterates previous work where cohesion impacts team effectiveness (Mason
and Griffin, 2003), including measures of satisfaction with the team and with team
viability (Tekleab et al., 2009) which have also been found as both critical aspects of
group effectiveness (Hackman, 1987) and of team effectiveness (Hyatt and Ruddy,
1997). This connection resonates with previous models (e.g. Gersick, 1989) where team
cohesion improves task performance of teams. The increase in task performance
results from cohesion impacting team efficiency and improving the team’s ability to
attain goals, perceive themselves as viable to the task, enhance their sense of
satisfaction from the group experience, and to augment the overall performance of the
team. The quality of social networks also accounts for the three common, and salient,
variables necessary to the processes of effective group functioning and performance:
communication, social integration, and coordination (Evans and Carson, 2005).
Notably, while all three are linked to numerous findings of group productivity, social
integration manifested itself as the one apparent critical link to effective performance
(Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). Operationalized as both the attraction to the group itself
and the quality of social interaction among the group members, social integration has
significantly contributed to more productive communication (Smith et al., 1994), and
TPM
17,7/8
370
group membership (O’Reilly et al., 1989). Further, there appears to be more
fundamental ramifications with social integration leading to each of the other two
components to group processes: the aforementioned communication (Smith et al., 1994)
and to coordination (Knight et al., 1999). In fact, coordination of groups and teams
embodies the link between quality of social networks and tangible, collective group
action. Groups with high coordination use cognitive and affective resources optimally
and are more likely to produce high task achievement (Levine and Moreland, 1998).
1.2 Social capital
To measure the quality of social networks towards team performance, the amount of
integration, coordination, connectedness, and cohesiveness was summated into social
capital. The phenomenon of social capital is nothing new, as researchers have used
past literature to connect the social capital construct to effective and functioning
groups. Coleman (1988, p. 98), for one, compared the benefits of social capital to that of
any other form of capital since “social capital is productive, making possible the
achievement of certain ends that in its absence would not be possible”. Notably, social
capital makes this achievement possible by directly impacting the three key
components of group processes mentioned earlier. In fact, researchers have discovered
social capital as a solution to problems of coordination, high transaction costs, and
problems of information communication between and among individuals (Lazega and
Pattison, 2001; Lin, 2001). Each of these outcomes are by-products of quality social
networks within groups and teams of organizations. These networks are more aligned,
more efficient, and are thought to be more productive overall. This impact is explained
in the three specific aspects to social capital, in which each specific dimension utilizes
distinct processes to enhance social network quality (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). The
cognitive dimension of social capital refers to the shared, collective conscience of the
group. Here, similar experiences of the group create a collective identity of the group
one in which individuals draw a portion of their own identity. Key to these shared
experiences are the existence of a shared language and shared narratives in which
individual members continually draw closer to the idea of the group or team (Nahapiet
and Ghoshal). If social capital were defined as “one heart, one mind, one body” of the
group, the cognitive dimension would be the extent to which the group functions as
“one mind.” Conversely, the group’s “one body” would be exemplified by Nahapiet and
Ghoshal’s structural dimension of social capital. This dimension focuses on the overall
pattern of relationships within groups and organizations, which directly impacts all
outcomes related to coordination and communication. Strong structural social capital
of a group enables individuals to perform their jobs more efficiently and effectively
(Ibarra, 1992). The structural dimension is explored through the number of direct and
indirect ties, the frequency of interaction, the number of structural holes, and the
structural equivalence of the organization each of which is directly connected to
overall performance (DeWever et al., 2005). Beyond the “mind” and “body” of the
group, though, lies the “heart” of the group or the relational dimension of social
capital. Through this perspective, social capital within the group is exhibited by the
characteristics of the relations among the group members, specifically trust, norms of
behavior in particular, norms of reciprocity obligations and expectations, and
one’s affective connection to the group and organization (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).
The relational dimension echoes elements of Granovetter’s (1973) notion of strong ties,
Social capital
and team
performance
371
which are relationships between individuals in a group highlighted by trust,
reciprocity, and emotional intensity. This dimension also echoes Putnam’s (2000)
bonding social capital where relationships are thick and tight; and trust and similarity
are key components to the quality of interaction among individuals. From these strong
ties and bonding social capital come numerous group benefits. The relational
dimension, while connected to coordination and communication, centers on the social
integration of the group members, where trust and interaction are most salient.
Notably, relational social capital improves both functional participation and social
participation of members to the group (Bolino et al., 2002), which explains, in part, the
premise through which relational social capital has been seen to improve group
performance (Bouty, 2000). Specifically, relational social capital’s element of trust is
what separates the dimension from others. Myriad economic outcomes within an
organization are impacted by trust, yet the need for trust in interorganizational
networks remains relatively high (e.g. DeWever et al., 2005). Trust is linked with
improved work performance (Martı
´nez-Tur and Peiro
´, 2009) of which much is
accounted for with an increase in citizenship behaviors based upon this trust
(Robinson, 1996). Like overall social capital within a group, organizational, or
community context, citizenship behaviors facilitate organizational performance by
“lubricating” the social machinery of organizations (Bolino et al., 2002; Borman and
Motowidlo, 1993). This notion also reverberates to a larger scale as Putnam (2000) has
explicated social capital as a “social lubricant” within communities; thus, facilitating
coordinated, collective action of communities and lowering the overall transaction
costs of functioning communities. The impact of trust upon the social capital of the
group is also explained by the extent to which trust improves organizational
commitment (Aryee et al., 2002) and well-being at work (Rich, 1997).
The manifestation of social capital into increased performance of groups and teams
echoes previous research utilizing a public-good view of social capital and connecting it
to a meso-level perspective of group effectiveness. The dichotomy of public-private
value is one of the aspects that sets social capital apart as a measurable construct in
organizational management, though few studies have been able to measure social
capital or an explicit connection between social capital and team performance (Kostova
and Roth, 2003). Individuals within groups having high-quality social networks derive
a distinct private good in social capital, as each individual will garner numerous social
and psychological benefits from increased trust, cohesion, and social integration
(Belliveau et al., 1996). Interestingly, social capital can also be viewed as a public-good,
as social capital accumulation benefits the group, the organization, and the system
altogether (e.g. Fukuyama, 1995). Here, individuals do not need to participate directly
or equally in the process of social capital generation, yet everyone benefits to a
varied extent – when the group and organization (at the meso-level), or community
social capital (at the macro-level) is high. It is the public-good perspective that Nahapiet
and Ghoshal (1998) alluded to in supporting the concept that social capital exists as a
significant source of sustainable organizational advantage. This advantage stems from
social capital’s ability to make collective work easier and to facilitate both economic
and community development (Putnam, 2000). Extant literature currently suggests that
the direct link between social capital and organizational advantage is a significant one
(e.g. Adler and Kwon, 2002), and that the advantage arises from the fact that individual
group members work more effectively and efficiently when they operate within
TPM
17,7/8
372
high-quality social networks where they know one another, understand one another,
and trust one another (Bolino et al., 2002).
Because of this impact, the perspective of social capital as an organizational
resource is derived from the resource-based view of the organization, a view also
incorporated by past research (e.g. Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). The resource-based
view, or RBV, of the firm views organizations as heterogeneous bundles of resources
that are the source of various capabilities (Barney, 1991). The RBV’s focus, rather than
on external opportunities and threats, centers on the role of organizational resources
including tangible and intangible – and their attributes (Duncan et al., 1998). The RBV
stipulates that firms are endowed with these bundled resources and that competitive
advantage occurs if a resource is valuable, rare, and imperfectly imitable. Thus, the
resource(s) of the organization must be firm, specific, and not tradable (Hall, 1992). The
value, then, of high-quality social networks, or social capital, becomes a resource that
has the potential to contribute to the competitive advantage of the group or
organization. This argument is supported by Nahapiet and Ghoshal, who suggest that
organizations high in social capital are significantly more likely to be more successful
than competitors with relatively lower levels of social capital. Because social capital,
then, is one organizational attribute that is not easily formed and difficult to imitate
the presence of it will be likely to give organizations a sustainable edge over their
competitors (Bolino et al., 2002).
The current research sought to explore this notion in a specific team setting,
searching for a direct connection between the social capital presence and a tangible
product of team performance. Though extant literature fully supports the theoretical
connection between social capital and competitive advantage, a dearth of research has
tested this empirically. Thus, the purpose of this article is to extend our knowledge of
social capital, team performance, and competitive advantage.
2. Method
Data were collected from randomly-selected undergraduate student-athletes across 23
colleges or universities at the Division I level of the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA). The use of student athletes as team members allowed for the
study to have a unique opportunity to have teams with tangible performance
measures, such as wins and losses. Further, the ability to choose from 23 colleges and
universities provided the study with potentially strong external validity.
Student-athlete names and e-mail addresses were randomly chosen out of online
campus directories, and pre-notification letters for participation were sent
electronically to the 1,600 randomly selected students from 23 BCS institutions
chosen for this study. After the initial round of participation requests the subjects were
sent three follow-up e-mail messages requesting their participation. The survey items
were completed by 570 student athletes for an overall response rate of 35.63 percent, a
moderate and acceptable online response rate (e.g. Crawford et al., 2001).
After eliminating partial and incomplete responses, the total sample included in this
study (n¼434), a majority of the respondents were women (n¼278). Of the overall
respondents, an overwhelming majority of the sample were White, non Hispanic
(n¼362), lived on campus (n¼229), had a mean age of nearly 20 years, and a mean
grade point average of 3.23. Overall, the student-athletes responded with moderately
Social capital
and team
performance
373
high levels of overall social capital at their university (M ¼5:41, SD ¼0:87) and
within their team (M ¼5:52, SD ¼1:12).
2.1 Social capital
To obtain the independent variable for the current study, the Social Capital
Assessment Tool (SCAT) was utilized to measure the amount of social capital
perceived to exist on each campus through student respondents (Krishna and Shrader,
1999). The SCAT was adapted from its original form which had previously been
utilized to establish social capital in communities around such issues as economics,
team identity (Clopton and Finch, 2010) and culture (Latham, 1998). The five-items
were adapted from the instrument including statements around the two salient
constructs of social capital: trust and norms of reciprocity, or social networks. These
statements ranged from “Most team members (athletes/coaches) are basically honest
and can be trusted,” to “Team members are always interested only in their own welfare
here,” to “I feel accepted as a member of this team.” With an inter-item correlation mean
of 0.39, the SCAT for the overall university setting reported an acceptable Cronbach’s
alpha of 0.80 as a measure of instrumental reliability and has been used in recent
research regarding the overall university environment (Clopton and Finch, 2010).
2.2 Team performance
The dependent variable was obtained through calculating the winning percentages of
teams to which each student-athlete belonged. Wins and losses from that year were
obtained through each school’s athletic department website and through the NCAA
official web site. Additionally, the winning percentage from the previous year’s teams
was also obtained for additional control in the analysis, as it was anticipated that there
would be a spillover effect regarding the team performances from the previous year.
2.3 Analysis
Data were analyzed through a multiple hierarchical regression analysis using an entry
method mirroring inputs – process – outputs. For the student respondents,
demographical variables (e.g. gender, race, age) were entered into the initial step of the
analysis. The second block of analysis included three variables regarding the athletic
and academic environment for each student (e.g. year in school, grade point average,
previous year’s winning percentage). Finally, after controlling for the inputs and
process-related variables, the social capital variable was regressed along the team
performance variable as the dependent variable. Results are presented in Tables I and
II, and discussed below.
3. Results
Initial results showed a unique relationship between social capital and input and
process variables. Significant bi-variate correlations existed between social capital and
gender (r¼0:11, p,0:01), race (r¼0:23, p,0:001), and student grade point
average (r¼0:14, p,0:05). All correlations are presented in Table I. To explore the
relationship between social capital and team performance, the regression analysis was
conducted along the aforementioned format. Notably, the measure of social capital did,
in fact, provide a low, but significant, contribution to team performance (
b
¼0:12,
p,0:05) after controlling for input and process variables. Interestingly, this
TPM
17,7/8
374
contribution was significant beyond the significant connection between team
performance and the previous year’s performance, which was a strong predictor
(
b
¼0:56, p,0:001). Current results seem to confirm the previously-held notion that
social network value, such as social capital, does hold a potentially-competitive
advantage for teams. This connection occurred after controlling for, not only previous
team performance levels, but for individual team member inputs as well.
4. Discussion
Findings from this study seem to suggest numerous potential implications for
contributing to the overall knowledge of social capital’s role in group dynamics and
team performance. First, results here confirm previous findings on relational social
capital in regards to salient outcomes of team effectiveness. These namely include
loyalty and initiative (Bolino et al., 2001), citizenship behaviors (Bolino et al., 2002), and
coordination (Lin, 2001). As opposed to the cognitive and structural dimensions of
social capital, relational social capital is what I would refer to as the “heart” of the
group, or the aspect of social networks based upon trust and norms of reciprocity. The
distinction of relational social capital is that quality social networks are derived from
the extent to which they are close-knit and emotionally connected. It is this aspect of
connectedness that facilitates group effectiveness by improving interaction efficiency,
overall coordination, and functional and social participation (Bolino et al., 2002). It is
also the focus of this article as the social capital instrument, or SCAT, was constructed
on the relational dimension of social capital. It is the relational dimension of social
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Team performance
2. Gender 0.04
3. Race 0.11 0.07
4. Age 0.08 20.10 0.02
5. School Year 0.03 20.03 0.03 0.87 ***
6. GPA 0.06 0.16 ** 0.29 *** 20.01 0.04
7. Past performance 0.58 *** 0.002 0.10 0.07 0.03 0.04
8. Social capital 0.19 ** 0.11 *0.23 *** 20.01 0.06 0.14 *0.11
Notes: *p,0:05; **
p,0:0; ***
p,0.001; n¼434
Table I.
Correlations of all
variables used in analysis
Variable (figures from final step of analysis) BSE B
b
Gender 0.02 0.02 0.04
Race 0.01 0.03 0.02
Age 0.02 0.02 0.14
Year in school 20.02 0.01 20.11
Grade point average 0.01 0.02 0.02
Past team performance 0.61 0.06 0.56 **
Social capital 0.01 0.002 0.12 *
Notes: R
2
¼0.02, p¼0.25 for Step 1; R
2
D¼0.32, p,0:001 for Step 2; R
2
D¼0.02, p,0:05 for
Step 3; *values significant at the 0.05 level; **
values significant at the 0.001 level; n¼434
Table II.
Summary of hierarchical
regression analysis
predicting team
performance
Social capital
and team
performance
375
capital that also facilitates the other two dimensions of structural and cognitive social
capital. With social capital enhancing the team performance in the current study,
findings also reiterate the importance of trust. Because the groups and teams within
organizations offer a unique and added dynamic between individual and
organizational orientation, the role of trust in managing team performance is
elevated. In fact, the affective resources of organizations are mostly found at the group
level, as this is the most common conduit through which individual employees connect
to the larger organization (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Subsequently, the tapping into
affective resources is of the utmost salience to group managers and this entire process
is predicated upon the elements of relational social capital that is, trust and norms of
reciprocity. This salience was reinforced here as relational social capital was able to
significantly predict team performance, even beyond that of which was predicted from
previous year’s performances.
The connection between social capital – here, relational social capital – also
reinforces findings from previous models of team effectiveness. Gersick’s (1989)
Punctuated Equilibrium Model is predicated on the extent to which social networks of
teams lead to overall team cohesion over time. This increased cohesion fosters an
environment that impacts the efficiency of group coordination and communication and
these elements manifest themselves in improved effectiveness. While the time element
was beyond the scope of the current research, it can be assumed that the similar
functioning occurred through the quality of relational social capital setting
high-performing teams a part from those teams with relatively lower levels of social
capital. Similarly, the Socio-Emotional Model of Team Effectiveness (Druskat and
Wolff, 2001) posits social capital as a resource constructed upon emotional intelligence
another aspect to relational social capital. From there, the quality of task processes
and the level of engagement into those processes are dependent upon the extent to
which teams build social capital through an emotional connection. Further, the role of
social capital has also been proposed as an antecedent in Goyal and Akhilesh’s (2007)
model predicting team innovativeness and as a moderator between functional diversity
and group processes in Evans and Carson’s (2005) model for team performance. The
significant impact of social capital upon team performance here confirms the
theoretical place of social capital within these models and provides for a further
empirical base upon which social capital and team performance can be explicitly
connected.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the research findings here offer further
confirmation of the role of social capital as a resource to be managed with significant
competitive advantage potential. According to RBV of organizations, resources
contribute to an organization’s competitive advantage if they are rare and inimitable
(Barney, 1991). Past research has alluded to social capital’s potential as this resource
(e.g. Bolino et al., 2002; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998) because of the menagerie of
outcomes distinctly connected to it. Because social capital serves as an aggregate
measure of cohesion, connectedness, integration, trust, norms of reciprocity, group
identity, individual reputation, and more, the social capital measure in an organization
has been shown to contribute to other antecedents of group effectiveness (i.e.
citizenship behaviors, coordination, communication, etc.) and to group effectiveness
itself (i.e. satisfaction with the group, perceptions of performance, task execution, etc.)
Here, though, social capital shows a direct contribution to team performance, thus,
TPM
17,7/8
376
providing these teams with a significant competitive advantage over competing teams
and organizations. While the acquisition of resources in the form of human capital,
financial capital, and organizational capital are most common and their contributions
to the organization are unquestioned, the actual contribution of social capital to the
organization through this perspective is less known. For this reason, social capital
becomes one of the greatest opportunities facing groups, teams, and organizations still
today.
5. Conclusion and implications
While this research study attempted to contribute to the overall understanding of
social capital in team settings, several limitations arose that should be taken into
caution when considering the generalizability of these results. First, only the dimension
of relational social capital was utilized to assess social capital. Thus, it is recommended
that future research studies attempt to operationalize cognitive and structural social
capital in addition to relational social capital to create a three-dimensional
instrument of social capital for teams and organizations. Future research would also
benefit from including variables measuring the three elements of group processes:
communication, social integration, and coordination. A deeper understanding is
necessary regarding the interaction between the three dimensions of social capital
(structural, cognitive, relational) and the three variables of the group process
(communication, social integration, coordination).
Also limiting the current research was the one-year, cross-sectional approach to
assessing social capital and team performance. I attempted to address this limitation
by controlling for the previous year’s team performance levels. However, a longitudinal
design incorporating a multi-dimensional construct of social capital and a more holistic
approach to measuring team effectiveness (e.g. team performance, satisfaction with the
team, etc.) would present findings that provide a richer understanding of a truly unique
dynamic between the quality of social networks and team outcomes. Another
limitation was the use of individual-level assessments of social capital, rather than
group-level measurements. While this was by design in attempting to capture the
balance of social capital as both a private and public good within a work team context,
group performance and group social capital were beyond the scope of the study and
these results should be interpreted appropriately. It is recommended that follow-up
studies incorporate data from both individual and group levels.
Finally, it is recommended that both researchers and team managers continue to
explore the existence of tangibility in regard to the social networks of team members.
While the potential of social capital to deliver a competitive advantage seems merited,
social interactions remain the most untapped and underdeveloped of all resources
within organizations. The underutilization of social capital has serious ramifications in
terms of inefficiency and ineffectiveness. While social capital can be leveraged into
additional resources such as financial and human capital, the inverse might also be
true as groups and organizations with impoverished levels of social capital might be at
risk in seeing that absence parlay into dwindling resources elsewhere. Nonetheless,
future efforts must continue to build upon this awareness and expand upon the notion
of social capital as a distinct competitive advantage.
To begin with this, it is imperative that future research explicates the role each of
the three dimensions of social capital (i.e. relational, cognitive, and structural) and their
Social capital
and team
performance
377
connection with group performance. Initial work should take a qualitative approach to
explore for the unique contributions that elements of each social capital dimension
provide in the work team and overall group relationship. This will allow future
research to have a clearer understanding of the extent to which this theoretical
framework of relational, cognitive, and structural social capital impacts group
members and group functions individually. Once established, a quantitative
exploration will allow for a clearer understanding in this framework and the
subsequent impact on group effectiveness and efficiency. Herein lies the greatest
impact for team managers. While it is widely accepted that the quality of social
networks has a direct connection with group effectiveness, much less is known about
the unique role each dimension of social capital plays in that process. From this
research, managers and supervisors will be able to ascertain the appropriate contexts
in which to build group identity, to use symbols and values to relate members back to
the tradition and affect of the group, or to use policy to realign team structure to
improve communication effectiveness and efficiency. While each example represents
an enhancement of social capital of the team, each also comes from distinctly different
dimensions of social capital and are appropriate responses to distinctly different
barriers to a work team’s performance. Once this is established, team managers need to
be able to accurately ascribe their team’s social capital within the context of its
competitors. Doing so will allow for a clearer understanding of the extent to which the
team’s social capital is valuable to the organization, rare in comparison to its
competitors, and difficult to imitate for those who do not have it. Such a context would
make it possible for a teams and organizations to build upon the ultimate goal of
creating a sustainable competitive advantage.
References
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S. (2002), “Social capital: prospects for a new concept”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 27, pp. 17-40.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P.S. and Chen, Z.X. (2002), “Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 315-20.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 20-39.
Balkindi, P. and Harrison, D.A. (2006), “Ties, leaders, and time in teams: strong inference about
network structure’s effects on team viability and performance”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 49-68.
Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17, pp. 99-120.
Beal, D.J., Cohen, R.R., Burke, M.J. and McLendon, C.L. (2003), “Cohesion and performance in
groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 88, pp. 989-1004.
Belliveau, M., O’Reilly, C. and Wade, J. (1996), “Social capital at the top: effects of social similarity
and status on CEO compensation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 1568-93.
Bolino, M.C., Bloodgood, J.M. and Turnley, W.H. (2001), “Organizational citizenship behavior and
the creation of social capital”, Academy of Management Proceedings, OB, pp. B1-B6.
TPM
17,7/8
378
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H. and Bloodgood, J.M. (2002), “Citizenship behavior and the creation of
social capital in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, pp. 505-22.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. (Eds), Personnel Selection in
Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 71-98.
Bouty, I. (2000), “Interpersonal and interactional influences on informal resource exchanges
between R&D researchers across organizational borders”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 50-65.
Burt, R.S. (1992), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Completion, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Clopton, A.W. and Finch, B.L. (2010), “Are college students ‘bowling alone’? Examining the
contribution of fan identification to the social capital of college students”, Journal of Sport
Behavior, Vol. 33, pp. 333-66.
Coleman, J.S. (1988), “Social capital in the creation of human capital”, American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 94, pp. 95-120.
Crawford, S.D., Couper, M.D. and Lamias, M.J. (2001), “Web surveys: perceptions of burden”,
Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 19, pp. 146-62.
DeWever, S., Martens, R. and Vandenbempt, K. (2005), “The impact of trust on strategic resource
acquisition through interorganizational networks: towards a conceptual model”, Human
Relations, Vol. 58, pp. 1523-43.
Druskat, V.U. and Wolff, S.B. (2001), “Group emotional competence and its influence on group
effectiveness”, in Cherniss, C. and Goleman, D. (Eds), Emotional Competence in
Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 132-55.
Duncan, W.J., Ginter, P.M. and Swayne, L.E. (1998), “Competitive advantage and internal
organizational assessment”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1, pp. 6-16.
Evans, W.R. and Carson, C.M. (2005), “A social capital explanation of the relationship between
functional diversity and group performance”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 11,
pp. 302-15.
Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust: The Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity, Free Press, New York,
NY.
Gersick, C.J.G. (1989), “Marking time: predictable transitions in task groups”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 274-309.
Glynn, M.A. (1996), “Innovative genius: a framework for relating individual and organizational
intelligences to innovation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. XXI, pp. 1081-111.
Goleman, D. (1998), “What makes a leader”, Harvard Business Review, November-December,
pp. 93-102.
Goyal, A. and Akhilesh, K.B. (2007), “Interplay among innovativeness, cognitive intelligence,
emotional intelligence and social capital of work teams”, Team Performance Management,
Vol. 13, pp. 206-26.
Granovetter, M.S. (1973), “The strength of weak ties”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78,
pp. 1360-80.
Gully, S.M., Incalcaterra, K.A., Joshi, A. and Beaubien, J.M. (2002), “A meta-analysis of
team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as
moderators of observed relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 819-32.
Social capital
and team
performance
379
Hackman, J.R. (1987), “The design of effective work teams”, in Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.), Handbook of
Organizational Behavior, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 47-99.
Hall, R. (1992), “The strategic analysis of intangible resources”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 13, pp. 135-44.
Hyatt, D.E. and Ruddy, T.H. (1997), “An examination of the relationship between work team
characteristics and effectiveness: a replication and extension”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 50, pp. 553-85.
Ibarra, H. (1992), “Structural alignments, individual strategies, and managerial action: elements
toward a network theory of getting things done”, in Nohria, N. and Eccles, R.G. (Eds),
Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action, Harvard Business School
Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 165-89.
Knight, D., Pearce, C., Smith, K.G., Olian, J.D., Sims, H.P. and Smith, K.A. (1999), “Top
management team diversity, group processes, and strategic consensus”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 403-37.
Kostova, T. and Roth, K. (2003), “Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-macro
model of its formation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28, pp. 297-317.
Krishna, A. and Shrader, E. (1999), Social Capital Assessment Tool, Social Capital Initiative, The
World Bank, Washington, DC, available at: www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/
wkrppr/wrkppr.htm (accessed March 28, 2006).
Kuo, C.C. (2004), “Research on impacts of team leadership on team effectiveness”, The Journal of
American Academy of Business, pp. 266-77.
Latham, M. (1998), Civilizing Global Capital: New Thinking for Australian Labor, Allen and
Unwin, Sydney.
Lazega, E. and Pattison, P.E. (2001), “Social capital as social mechanisms and collective assets:
the example of status among colleagues”, in Lin, N., Cook, K.C. and Burt, R.S. (Eds), Social
Capital: Theory and Research, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, NY, pp. 185-208.
Levine, J.M. and Moreland, R.L. (1998), “Small groups”, in Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T. and
Lindzey, G. (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY, pp. 415-69.
Lin, N. (2001), Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action, Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY.
Martı
´nez-Tur, V. and Peiro
´, J.M. (2009), “The trust episode in organizations: implications for
private and public capital”, Social Science Information, Vol. 48, pp. 143-72.
Mason, C.M. and Griffin, M.A. (2003), “Identifying group task satisfaction at work”, Small Group
Research, Vol. 34, pp. 413-42.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 242-66.
O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Martocchio, J.J. and Frink, D.D. (1994), “A review of the influence of group
goals on group performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 1285-301.
O’Reilly, C.A., Caldwell, D.F. and Barnett, W.P. (1989), “Work group demography, social
integration, and turnover”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 34, pp. 21-37.
Putnam, R.D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon
& Schuster, New York, NY.
TPM
17,7/8
380
Rich, G. (1997), “The sales manager as a role model: effects on trust, job satisfaction and
performance of salespeople”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25,
pp. 319-28.
Robinson, S.L. (1996), “Trust and breach of the psychological contract”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 574-99.
Smith, K.G., Smith, K.A., Olian, J.D., Sims, H.P. and Scully, J.A. (1994), “Top management team
demography and process: the role of social integration and communication”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 412-38.
Tekleab, A.G., Quigley, N.R. and Tesluk, P.E. (2009), “A longitudinal study of team conflict,
conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 34, pp. 170-205.
Williams, K.Y. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1998), “Demography and diversity in organizations: a review
of 40 years of research”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 77-140.
Further reading
Lin, N. (2000), “Inequality in social capital”, Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 29, pp. 785-95.
Corresponding author
Aaron W. Clopton can be contacted at: awc@lsu.edu
Social capital
and team
performance
381
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
... Social capital, both as an individual and community resource, is crucial in explaining the capacity of work communities, well-being, coping, professional growth and the development of employees. The studies suggest that an appropriate level of social capital in the work community can prevent burnout [32], increase job satisfaction, add job engagement [33,34] and promote achieving working goals [35]. In particular, the role of mobilising social capital is pivotal when work communities face crises. ...
... The third dimension of social capital, the relational one, refers to the quality and nature of ongoing personal relationships between members of a certain social system who have evolved over time in the interaction between team members, such as friendship, trust and communality [20,35]. The relational dimension can also be referred to as 'strong ties' [37] or bonding social capital [31] that link to the relationships between the members of the group, which are characterised by trust, norms, obligations and identification. ...
... These characteristics may have many advantages to the group's performance, and they can motivate group members to act together [20]. As Meng et al. [34] point out, the triangular division of social capital introduced by Nahapiet and Ghoshal highlights the multidimensional nature of social capital, how each of the dimensions contributes in its own way to the performance of a certain social network [35]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The sudden outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing restrictive measures to combat infections led to a significant change in working life and social work within working communities. Workers had to switch to telecommuting quickly, which also affected the interactions between co-workers. In this research, we examined Finnish social workers’ experiences of their work communities during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We explored (1) how the restrictive measures affected social workers’ work communities and (2) what types of factors promoted and challenged the cohesion of social networks and mutual trust between colleagues. The conceptual framework was based on social capital theory, in which social relations are seen as a resource of a community. The data utilised in the study were social workers’ diaries (n = 33) written from mid-March until the end of May 2020. The data were analysed by a qualitative content analysis. The results highlight how the multilocation of work, fear of viral infection and varying attitudes towards the viral outbreak affected the interactions between colleagues in the early stages of the pandemic, increasing tensions and feelings of social distance between co-workers. The common professional value and knowledge base of social work, as well as remote work practices developed during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, supported interactions between colleagues. Although remote interaction options were developed, they could not, however, fully replace the advantages of face-to-face interactions and everyday informal encounters between colleagues, the importance of which is essential for developing and maintaining the social capital of work communities.
... The contribution of this research to the literature is important given that the relationships that individuals build as members of teams, groups, or organizations and the degree of the relational social capital these relationships encompass are argued to be strongly founded on emotional connections (Druskat & Wolff, 2001;Clopton, 2011). Since EI includes the individuals' abilities to regulate one's own and others' emotions through empathy, helping, and building bonds (Goleman et al., 2013), it should be related to those individual characteristics that promote high-quality social relationships or relational social capital. ...
... Considering the social nature of EI, it is also argued to be a sub-dimension of social intelligence (Salovy & Mayer, 1990). Druskat and Wolff (2005) and Clopton (2011) argue social capital to be founded and constructed upon EI, and Goyal and Akhilesh (2007) argue that EI and social capital are correlated. Considering this theoretical link, Lee et al. (2013) empirically examine the impact of project managers' EI on their teams' social capital; however, their results are insignificant. ...
Article
Full-text available
This research investigates the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and relational social capital. EI is regarded as a social competence which facilitates and promotes the quality of interpersonal and social relationships, and relational social capital is a well-known concept representing those individual qualities and resources such as trust, identification, and obligation or commitment which shape high-quality interpersonal relationships. However, no study to date has empirically examined how relational social capitalmay be predicted by EI as a component of individuals’ social competence. Our main arguments are that the four main dimensions of EI including self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management would increase the level of relational social capital among employees. Our structural equation modeling analysis on survey data across 375 employees of 64 randomly selected branches of an Iranian bank shows that although self management and relationship management dimensions are significantly related to relational social capital, self-awareness and social awareness are not significantly related to this concept.
... Cognitive Social Capital is the shared collective conscience of a group (Clopton, 2011). In this context a group will build up their own identity based on their own unique features and work like a one team when engaging in work. ...
... Further, Clopton (2011) has mentioned that Social Capital can be considered as a public good. During the Social Capital creation process, the individuals will not directly contribute, but when reaping the benefits of the Social Capital everyone within the group or the community will be equally benefited. ...
... Based on COR, social ties can be compromised if ostracism is present, as individuals will not form or preserve such ties. Social ties can be a crucial resource, especially in environments that require group efforts (Clopton, 2011). Ostracized employees can have difficulties reaching work-related resources and accessing information frequently embodied in social ties . ...
Article
The main purpose of the study was to examine the influence of workplace ostracism on service recovery performance (SRP). Because effective SRP is crucial for the success of hospitality businesses, it is important to study new factors that can enhance SRP. The current study makes a significant contribution to the service recovery literature by identifying critical predictors of SRP. Although the effects of workplace ostracism on work outcomes are well established, much less is known about the underlying mechanisms linking those relationships. Drawing from the conservation of resource theory, this study particularly examined the mediating role of bonding social capital with co-workers and organizational trust. Data was collected from five-star hotels in Turkey involving 180 employees. Structural equation modeling results show the mediating effect of bonding social capital and organizational trust between ostracism and SRP. The current study significantly contributes to the ostracism literature by finding a new outcome variable (i.e., SRP - an essential element of service performance which is especially important in hospitality and tourism contexts) and two new mediators that explain the underlying mechanism. The study provides implications for researchers and practitioners.
... Employees can notice that, in order to maintain a high service level, the organization/leader greatly appreciates behaviors that go beyond the formal requirements, i.e., a greater civic behavior [52]. Moreover, the servant leader can improve the social communication and integration of the organization/group [53]. Co-responsibility also indicates that the priority of servant leaders is to satisfy the needs of the followers and society before attaining the goals of the organization [47,54,55]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Biomimicry is a scientific discipline that aims to model the behavior or properties of biological systems so as to adapt them to other scientific areas. Recently, this approach has been adopted in order to develop an organizational model called “Organizational Biomimicry”. It proposes a systemic approach, a worldview that places the organization and the people related to it as an integral part of nature, and an R&D system based on continuous learning from nature. The effective management of this business model depends on leaders who can make dynamic decisions, generate commitment to the views of the company, define specific goals, actively learn on multiple levels and tackle conflicts. This type of leadership may actually be being exercised in business practice; however, no leadership style inspired by biomimicry has been theorized to date. Thus, the aim of this research was to present a biomimetic leadership model that considers nature as a model, measure and mentor. To this end, we proposed, firstly, a definition of a biomimetic leader from the point of view of the characteristics of biomimetic organizations. Then, we determined the characteristics of this leadership type. Secondly, we conducted a review of the main leadership styles analyzed in the recent literature about management; then, for each leadership type, we extracted the characteristics that will adapt to the biomimetic leadership model. From this process, we obtained the traits of a biomimetic leader. This characterization (definition plus characteristics) was subjected to an expert panel, which determined its validity.
... There is considerable relation among collective resources and group presentations. Moreover, societal resources (i.e., relational, emotional, and structural) and their relationship influence group presentation (Clopton, 2011). Legislative ability positively affects group presentation by encouraging the superiority of group communication (Liu, Wang, & Cao, 2011), and legislative ability is found to be severe abilities that managers need to do hard work to improve this skill. ...
Article
This study aims to determine intragroup conflict factors that could be found within teams in an organization, the relationship between intragroup conflict, and team performance, which included relationship conflict, task conflict, and process conflict. SPSS is used to analyze the regression on the proposed model. The data has been collected from the education sector, with the sample size of 150 target population. This study proposed a positive relationship between task conflict, process conflict, and team performance; therefore, a negative relationship was examined for relationship conflict.
... Beyond the potential links between social networks and perceived resilience (i.e., that firms that lack knowledge about organizational resilience may use their networks to acquire such knowledge and attendant resources), empirical associations between social capital, organizational advantage, and performance have been posited (Dimov & Shepherd, 2005;Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 2003) because knowledge, understanding, and trust between actors groups result in a better use of resources and greater effectiveness in achieving organizational goals (Adler & Kwon, 2002;Clopton, 2011). Monavvarian et al. (2013) found that networks (and other dimensions of social capital including trust, social norms, obligations and expectations, and identity) have a positive impact on knowledge management. ...
Article
Full-text available
As the ability to respond and adapt to crises, we conceptualize and examine organizational resilience through four components (active, temporal, posture, and performance). This multidimensional view of resilience combines the perceptions of senior managers and other indicators including the presence and nature of formal business continuity management. This study examines whether relationships with neighboring firms in a business park substitute wider network relationships. Relationships between locational attributes (locational contiguity within a business park), entrepreneurs’ social networks, and the perceived resilience of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the United Kingdom are examined using data collected from 268 SMEs. Locational attributes are positively associated with organizational resilience (in both aggregated and constituent forms) while revealing an inverse relationship between social networks and perceived resilience. Importantly, the study contributes to a place-based view of resilience to explain why the impact of social networks differs from the positive associations that are found in prior theoretical and empirical work.
Article
Although recent literature suggested that knowledge generation and dissemination in social networks influence the resilience, the research in the two areas knowledge transfer and social capital has shown a low tendency to integrate into theoretical frameworks. This paper discusses the process of building a micro-theory, which explains the dynamics of knowledge transfer in network associations of disaster responders. The proposed theory suggests the association among knowledge transfer, dimensions of social capital, and resilience in a disaster context. This study employs an interpretive case study research design, with an exploratory approach and uses grounded theory driven constant comparison method for data analysis. The transcriptions from 21 semi-structured interviews and participant observations of two disaster drill exercises used as the primary data source for the data analysis. The analysis of this study generates a coding pattern with six categories of concepts and proposes the theory of KTinSSC with the theoretical consensus from the two case studies. The proposed theory explains the knowledge transfer among responders who are focused mostly on the immediate survival and discusses the effect of knowledge transfer interactions on their normative beliefs. The study also suggests ways to attain higher levels of resilience among such survival-focused social groups.
Article
Full-text available
INTRODUCTION This study aims to improve understanding of the relationship between some customer demographic variables which are gender, income level, family life cycle and age and price sensitivity of customers which is an individual difference variable describing how individual consumers show their reactions to changes in price levels. This study will be applied in Fast Moving Consumer goods (FMCG) market in Egypt. Fast Moving Consumer goods are the products which have high usage frequency, have limited shelf life (up to two years max) for example Biscuits, chocolates, personal care, hair care and dental care products. The consumption of these products is high and that's why these products move fast from retailers to consumers.
Article
Full-text available
INTRODUCTION This study aims to improve understanding of the relationship between some customer demographic variables which are gender, income level, family life cycle and age and price sensitivity of customers which is an individual difference variable describing how individual consumers show their reactions to changes in price levels. This study will be applied in Fast Moving Consumer goods (FMCG) market in Egypt. Fast Moving Consumer goods are the products which have high usage frequency, have limited shelf life (up to two years max) for example Biscuits, chocolates, personal care, hair care and dental care products. The consumption of these products is high and that's why these products move fast from retailers to consumers.
Article
Full-text available
How do members' and leaders' social network structures help or hinder team effectiveness? A meta-analysis of 37 studies of teams in natural contexts suggests that teams with densely configured interpersonal ties attain their goals better and are more committed to staying together; that is, team task performance and viability are both higher. Further, teams with leaders who are central in the teams' intragroup networks and teams that are central in their intergroup network tend to perform better. Time sequencing, member familiarity, and tie content moderate structure-performance connections. Results suggest stronger incorporation of social network concepts into theories about team effectiveness.
Article
Scholars of the theory of the firm have begun to emphasize the sources and conditions of what has been described as “the organizational advantage,” rather than focus on the causes and consequences of market failure. Typically, researchers see such organizational advantage as accruing from the particular capabilities organizations have for creating and sharing knowledge. In this article we seek to contribute to this body of work by developing the following arguments: (1) social capital facilitates the creation of new intellectual capital; (2) organizations, as institutional settings, are conducive to the development of high levels of social capital; and (3) it is because of their more dense social capital that firms, within certain limits, have an advantage over markets in creating and sharing intellectual capital. We present a model that incorporates this overall argument in the form of a series of hypothesized relationships between different dimensions of social capital and the main mechanisms and processes necessary for the creation of intellectual capital.
Conference Paper
Web surveys appear to be attaining lower response rates than equivalent mail surveys. One reason may be that there is currently little information on effective strategies for increasing response to Internet-based surveys. Web users are becoming more impatient with high-burden Web interactions. The authors examined the decision to respond to a Web survey by embedding a series of experiments in a survey of students at the University of Michigan. A sample of over 4,500 students was sent an e-mail invitation to participate in a Web survey on affirmative action policies. Methodological experiments included using a progress indicator, automating password entry, varying the timing of reminder notices to nonrespondents, and using a prenotification report of the anticipated survey length. Each of these experiments was designed to vary the burden (perceived or real) of the survey request. Results of these experiments are presented.
Article
It is generally agreed in the strategic management literature that internal organizational assessment is less developed theoretically and practically than other areas of situation analysis. This paper presents a four stage approach to analyzing a firm's internal strengths and weaknesses and illustrates how the technique can facilitate strategy formulation through the integration of value chain concepts and the incorporation of the most recent findings on internal resources and capabilities. A case example is used to illustrate how the approach can be applied by strategic decision makers as a tool for exploring the potential of their companies for sustained competitive advantage.
Article
Understanding sources of sustained competitive advantage has become a major area of research in strategic management. Building on the assumptions that strategic resources are heterogeneously distributed across firms and that these differences are stable over time, this article examines the link between firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Four empirical indicators of the potential of firm resources to generate sustained competitive advantage-value, rareness, imitability, and substitutability are discussed. The model is applied by analyzing the potential of several firm resources for generating sustained competitive advantages. The article concludes by examining implications of this firm resource model of sustained competitive advantage for other business disciplines.