مقاله انگلیسی رایگان

ترجمه فارسی رایگان 

فهرست مقاله:

مقدمه
سرمايه اجتماعي در مديريت عمومي
مديريت متنوع و سرمايه اجتماعي در مدرسه
مدیریت متنوع
سرمایه اجتماعی
کنترل متغیرها
مدلسازی عملکرد آموزشی
نتایج و یافته ها
بحث و نتیجه گیری

بخشی از ترجمه فارسی مقاله:

مدیران از عملکرد سازمان هایشان نگران هستند که از منابع سرمایه انسانی، اداری و اجتماعی در دسترس استفاده خواهند کرد. به هرحال، نظریه موجود و شواهد تجربی ترکیبی، تاثیر سرمایه اجتماعی بر عملکرد را مشخص نمی کند. دستاوردهای هنجارهای مذکور عبارتند از تقابل، مشارکت، شبکه، و اعتماد که ممکن است فقط برخی از مشتریان خود بطور نامتناسب از مزایای آن بهره مند شوند، منجر به اختلاف در نتایج در میان مشتریان مختلف می شود. ما استدلال می کنیم که در چنین شیوه ای، مدیریت سیاست هایی را برای مقابله با این تفاوت ها در اولویت قرار می دهد. در واقع، شواهد تجربی ما از مدیریت آموزش عمومی، انتظار می رود که تعهد سازمانی به تنوع، با موفقیت تاثیرات نامناسبی سرمایه اجتماعی بر عملکرد سازمانی را کاهش می دهد. این یافته ها پیامدهای مهمی برای مدیریت عمومی و عدالت در نتایج سیاست عمومی دارد و ممکن است مربوط به مدیریت نتایج با تاکید بر تولید مشترک ویژه باشد.
مقدمه
اگرچه مطالعه سرمایه اجتماعی، پیشینه تحقیق گسترده ای در مورد بررسی رابطه جوامع ایجاد کرده است، کار کمی نحوه تاثیر سرمایه اجتماعی بر روی سازمان ها و مدیریت دولتی آنها را بررسی کرده است (استثنائی های قابل توجه شامل تسای و گوشال 1998، و اندروز و برور 2013، 2015 می باشد). درک موفقیت آمیز مدیریت سرمایه اجتماعی ممکن است پیامدهای مهمی برای مدیریت عمومی داشته باشد؛ زیرا منابع مذکورممکن است اثربخشی و کارآیی در اجرای برنامه عمومی از طریق شبکه های موجود و هماهنگی در جوامع را تسهیل کنند (پاتنام 1993، 2000). سرمایه اجتماعی می تواند نقش مهمی در مدیریت دولتی ایفا کند و مدیران باید قادر به تعامل با یا شکل دادن به اثرات سرمایه اجتماعی بر عملکرد سازمان های دولتی باشند.
در این مقاله، ما بررسی می کنیم چگونه سوابق اعتماد، شبکه، و تقابل می تواند بر عملکرد سازمانی تأثیر بگذارد و نیز چگونه این سرمایه اجتماعی ممکن است بطورنامتناسب از برخی از گروه های مفید مشتری بهره مند شوند. ما استدلال می کنیم که مدیریت می تواند این اختلافات بالقوه را با سیاست هایی بررسی کند که به طور خاص به مشتریان کم درآمد کمک می کند. در زمینه آموزش، تعهد سازمانی به تنوع، یکی از استراتژی های مدیریتی برای کاهش اثر نابرابر سرمایه اجتماعی در میان دانش آموزان کم درامد است. ما انتظارات خود را با مجموعه ای از نظرسنجی های اصلی مدیران مدرسه تست می کنیم که با داده های عمومی در عملکرد برنامه ارتباط دارند. یافته های ما نشان می دهد که سرمایه اجتماعی به طور قابل توجهی با پیشرفت دستاوردهای دانش آموزان ارتباط دارد، اما با پیشرفت سایرین ارتباطی ندارد، و مدیریت تنوع تاثیر مستقیمی دارد، اما یک نوش دارو نیست. تحلیل بیشتر، به هرحال، نشان می دهد که مدیریت تنوع می تواند تاثیر سرمایه اجتماعی را برای کاهش عملکرد نابرابر مهار کند. این یافته ها مستلزم تئوری سازی دقیق تر در مورد مدیریت عمومی، عملکرد برنامه و سرمایه اجتماعی است.

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

Managers concerned with the performance of their organizations will exploit available social, administrative, and human capital resources. However, extant theory and mixed empirical evidence leave the effect of social capital on performance unclear. The gains from these norms of reciprocity, participation, networking, and trust may disproportionately benefit only some of their clients, leading to disparities in outcomes among diverse clienteles. We argue that in such contexts, management will put in place policies to counter these disparities. Indeed, our empirical evidence from the management of public education supports the expectation that an institutional commitment to diversity successfully mitigates the uneven effects of social capital on organizational performance. This finding carries important implications for public management and equity in public policy outcomes and may be of particular relevance to management of outcomes relying on co-production.

INTRODUCTION

Although the study of social capital has generated an extensive literature examining the connectedness of communities, little work has examined how social capital affects public organizations and their management (notable exceptions include Tsai and Ghoshal 1998, and Andrews and Brewer 2013, 2015). Understanding the successful management of social capital may have important implications for public administration because this resource may facilitate effectiveness and efficiency in public programme implementation through pre-existing networks and coordination in communities (Putnam 1993, 2000). Social capital can play an important role in public administration, and managers should be able to interact with or shape the influences of social capital on the performance of public organizations. In this article, we investigate how contexts of greater trust, networking, and reciprocity can influence organizational performance, and further how this social capital may disproportionately benefit some advantaged client groups. We argue that management can address this potential disparity with policies specifically aimed to help less-advantaged clients. In the context of education, an institutional commitment to diversity is one such managerial strategy to mitigate the uneven effect of social capital among disadvantaged students. We test our expectations with a set of original surveys of school principals that are linked to public data on programme performance. Our findings indicate that social capital is significantly associated with improvement in some students’ achievement, but not with others, and that diversity management has little direct effect. Neither is a panacea. Further analysis, however, shows that diversity management can curb the impact of social capital to mitigate unequal performance. These findings call for more nuanced theorizing concerning public management, programme performance, and social capital.

بررسی اثر سرمایه فکری بر روی قابلیت های پویا در شرایط اقتصادی نوظهور: فرایند مدیریت دانش به عنوان یک عامل واسطه ای

Examining the Effects of Intellectual Capital on Dynamic Capabilities in Emerging Economy Context: Knowledge Management Processes as a Mediator

Abstract

This study aims to examine the effects of intellectual capital on dynamic capabilities and the mediating role of knowledge management processes. Based on the review of literature, a research model was proposed to examine this quantitative relationship. The model was empirically tested using 679 responses from the banking industry in India and applying Structural equation modeling analysis. It was found that intellectual capital with its three dimensions has significant effect on dynamic capabilities. Concerning to mediating role of knowledge management process, two patterns of association was found: Knowledge management process partially mediates the effect of organizational capital on dynamic capabilities and fully mediates the effect of human capital and social capital on dynamic capabilities. Based on these empirical insights, inferences and future avenues are further discussed in detail.

1 Introduction

With the increasing market dynamism and global competition, the topic of dynamic capability has carved a significant place for itself in the research domain. It has become a need of the hour rather than an option to ensure firms growth and competitiveness (Chien & Tsai, 2012; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Helfat & Peteraf, 2009; Lin & Wu, 2014; Teece, Pisano, & Schuen, 1997; Tseng & Lee, 2014; Zahra, Sapienza, & Davidsson, 2006). This intensifying need has garnered the strategic concern of research folks and practitioners towards the question: What facilitates dynamic capabilities? And improving the understanding of the precursors of dynamic capability has been the subject of numerous contributions, which recognized the role of knowledge management (e.g., Prieto & Easterby-Smith, 2006; Tseng & Lee, 2014; Van Reijsen, Helms, Batenburg, & Foorthuis, 2014), organizational learning-culture, organizational-process-alignment (Hung, Yang, Lien, McLean, & Kuo, 2010; Hung, Lien, & McLean, 2009), knowledge-resources (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Chien & Tsai, 2012; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Griffith, Noble, & Chen, 2006; Lin & Wu, 2014; McKelvie & Davidsson, 2009; Nieves & Haller, 2014; Verona & Ravasi, 2003; Wang & Ahmed, 2007; Wu, 2006; Zollo & Winter, 2002) and others. Interestingly, in spite of this much consideration on what factors stimulate the development of dynamic capabilities, little empirical inquiry had explored the effects of intellectual capital (Hsu & Sabherwal, 2012; Hsu & Chao-Hung Wang, 2012) defined as the sum of organizational knowledge resources (Youndt, Subramaniam, & Snell, 2004). Often, inquiries had to rely upon high-technology firms to infer this linkage. Studies addressing this subject in the banking are limited. Besides, rarely the facets of intellectual capital have been examined, even when inquiries have cited these (Hsu & Sabherwal, 2012). From this, the effects of intellectual capital with its facets is still open for investigation and linkages of different knowledge-based resources and dynamic capability has yet waiting for clarification (Easterby-Smith, Lyles, & Peteraf, 2009; Nieves & Haller, 2014; Prieto & EasterbySmith, 2006). Knowledge-based-view (KBV) and dynamiccapability-view (DCV) maintain that knowledgebased resources act as a base for facilitating knowledge flow in organizational learning processes, which forms an essential mechanism for building dynamic capabilities (Ambrosini, Bowman, & Collier, 2009; Chien & Tsai, 2012; Grant, 1996a, 1996b; Kogut & Zander, 1992; Lin & Wu, 2014; Nieves & Haller, 2014; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Teece et al., 1997). These thoughts emphasize the role of knowledge management process in leveraging, integrating, and reconfiguring knowledge-based-assets that is significantly associated with dynamic capabilities (Nielsen, 2006). This thought is constant with Pandza, Horsburgh, Gorton, and Polajnar (2003) submission that the process through which firm gains its abilities cannot be disconnected from how it obtains its knowledge. From this, the effect of intellectual capital on dynamic capabilities is far from immediate and it is through a mechanism, that is, knowledge management process. However, it is disappointing to annotate that the role of knowledge management process as an intervening mechanism between intellectual capital and dynamic capabilities is still underscored in the literature. In fact, there is hardly any research examining the processes that explain the path of dynamic capabilities development through the deployment of firm resources and execution of knowledge processes (Easterby-Smith et al., 2009). This continues the subsequent questions unanswered: Does intellectual capital effect the development of dynamic capabilities? Is the effect of intellectual capital is mediated by knowledge management process? To address these gaps, from the theoretical foundation of resource-based view (RBV), KBV and DCV, this study theorizes the notion that the intellectual capital will affect dynamic capabilities both directly and indirectly by facilitating and strengthening firms’ knowledge management process. This study tested the research model in the banking industry in India. Being a knowledgeintensive sector, banking industry entails a higher stock of knowledge primarily in terms of competence and skills (human capital), network relations between employees and clients (social capital) and technological knowledge (organizational capital) to make competitive strategies, create value, and sustain their competitiveness (Kamath, 2008; Mondal & Ghosh, 2012). These resources epitomize dynamic capabilities which create, integrate as well as reconfigure resources base to address changing business milieus (Teece et al., 1997) and can be developed through learning, repetitive practice, specific knowledge process and codified knowledge stored into formal procedures (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). Thus considering the significance of knowledge (intellectual capital), knowledge process (knowledge management process) for building dynamic capabilities, the examination of intellectual capital, and knowledge management with reference to evolution of dynamic capabilities is vital for banking industry. As India has become unified into the global economy and has been constantly evolving and diversifying, the economic and financial milieu in which the Indian banking firm is operating is also changing dynamically and in turn generates fierce global and domestic competition. They need directions how to integrate their assets and improve their ability to achieve sustainable operations (Kamath, 2007; Mondal & Ghosh, 2012). Here, dynamic capability emerged as a vital driver for corporate growth and for sustaining competitive advantage. It is indispensable for the banks to focus and invest in dynamic capabilities for addressing environmental fluctuations and in turn sustaining their competitiveness. Additionally prior studies were conducted specifically in developed economies, and, therefore, limit the applicability of findings in emerging economies like India. From this Indian context offers a robust setting for examining aforesaid research questions and such models. The present study surveyed 679 managers of banking firms in India and employed structuralequation-modeling (SEM) to investigate the research hypothesis. The remaining part of the study has the following arrangement. Theoretical background and hypothesis development are covered in this introductory section. Methodology and results are demonstrated next. Discussion along with implications deliberated subsequently. Finally, limitations, research directions and conclusions have been pondered.

تاثیر به اشتراک گذاری شبکه بر روی فعالیت های تسهیم دانش و عملکرد شغلی در محیط رسانه های اجتماعی شرکتی

The effects of network sharing on knowledge-sharing activities and job performance in enterprise social media environments

Abstract

This study examines the influence of the tertius iungens orientation on knowledge-sharing activities and individual job performance within enterprise social media environments. The empirical analysis reveals that knowledge self-efficacy, social interaction ties, and the norm of reciprocity positively influence the tertius iungens orientation and knowledge-sharing activities in social media, while enjoyment of helping does not have a significant influence. In addition, the tertius iungens orientation has a significant impact on knowledge-sharing activities in social media, which in turn influences individual job performance. Based on the results of this analysis, this study discusses the research findings and proposes theoretical and practical implications of the study as well as the research’s limitations.

1 Introduction

Social media environments offer unique features, including openness, two-way communication, and open-ended feedback. These characteristics have made it possible for large numbers of people to freely and easily share their thoughts, opinions, experiences, perspectives, information, and knowledge through social media (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Given the importance of mobilizing knowledge resources through active and close relationships with coworkers (Borgatti & Cross, 2003), social media, by nature, can be useful in facilitating knowledge-sharing activities within organizations. Social media platforms are increasingly implemented in work organizations as tools for communication among employees (Leonardi, Huysman, & Steinfield, 2013). Leonardi et al. (2013, p. 2) call social media in work environments “enterprise social media,” which they define as “web-based platforms that allow workers to (1) communicate messages with specific coworkers or broadcast messages to everyone in the organization; (2) explicitly indicate or implicitly reveal particular coworkers as communication partners; (3) post, edit, and sort text and files linked to themselves or others; and (4) view the messages, connections, text, and files communicated, posted, edited and sorted by anyone else in the organization at any time of their choosing.” With the help of web technology, social media can be combined with various media tools, such as video, audio, or photos, and various communication tools, such as chat applications, audio/ video conferencing programs, or feedback systems. Through social media, employees can easily share not only their explicit knowledge through written communication, but also their tacit knowledge, which may be difficult to express in written form. Social media can make shared knowledge richer and more abundant, which in turn promotes knowledge-sharing activities.

People who actively use social media gain knowledge and information that they can use to resolve problems they may encounter with coworkers or various others. Thus, in a social media context tertius iungens activity, which involves the introduction of unconnected individuals, can play an important role in information exchange and knowledge sharing. Hess (2013) has proposed that the role of the tertius iungens orientation in the news media involves “bridging and linking” to control the types of information shared between individuals, to connect people across cultural, social, and economic spaces, and to link people with others in positions of power. In the context of enterprises’ social media efforts, tertius iungens activities are expected to lead to the development of strongly connected network structures (Obstfeld, 2005), in which knowledge and information are smoothly transmitted by introducing people who are not yet connected to one another. This can make knowledge sharing more efficient and effective.

This study examines how individuals’ tertius iungens orientations affect knowledge-sharing activities and individual job performance. We propose a conceptual framework involving threestep cause and effect relationships, moving from the formation of tertius iungens to the activation of knowledge-sharing behavior, and then to the creation of job performance in social media environments. In the first step, we posit that individual and social factors affect the level of tertius iungens orientation through social media. Our hypotheses concerning this step are based on social cognitive theory and social capital theory. In the second step, knowledge-sharing activity is developed through the tertius iungens orientation and its antecedents. In the final step, the effect of the tertius iungens orientation on individual job performance is revealed through knowledge-sharing activities.

Our study makes significant theoretical contributions by revealing the important role of the tertius iungens orientation in the relationship between individual and social factors, knowledgesharing activities, and job performance, and presents practical implications for companies’ in-house social media strategies that make it possible to enhance individual job performance.

ارتباط ابعاد استفاده از رسانه های اجتماعی با عملکرد شغلی: نقش سرمایه اجتماعی

Linking dimensions of social media use to job performance: The role of social capital

مقدمه
فناوری های جدید قابلیت هایی را برای سازمان ها فراهم آورده اند که پیش از این وجود نداشتند. در واقع، نوآوری های فناوری نظیر رسانه های اجتماعی با ایجاد مدل های کسب و کاری و روش های بازار یابی جدید، بهبود پیش بینی های تقاضا، امکان اجرای روش های مدیریتی و یادگیری جدید و بهبود نوآوری، تسهیم دانش، همکاری و برقراری ارتباط، موجب افزایش غنای سازمان ها و ایجاد طیف وسیعی از قابلیت ها و استفاده ها شده اند (آرال و همکاران 2013، باقین و کای 2013،ارکوهارت و وازات 2012). پس جای تعجب نیست که یکی از ویژگی های منحصر به فرد رسانه های اجتماعی، تغییر شیوه های ارتباطی، همکاری، مصرف و تولید ما بوده است( آرال و همکاران 2013، صفحه 3). هم چنین تعداد رو به رشدی از مقالات و مطالعات در خصوص این موضوع نشان دهنده اهمیت بالای رسانه های اجتماعی می باشند( کلاسن و همکاران 2013) و هنوز تحقیقات فعلی تنها بخشی از آن قابلیت هایی که رسانه های اجتماعی می توانند در اختیار بگذارند و تاثیرات آینده آن ها در محیط کار را نشان می دهند. به منظور پر کردن شکاف های دانشی مربوط به رسانه های اجتماعی و استفاده از آن ها نیاز به تحقیقات بیشتری است(آرال و همکاران 2013). بر این اساس، سوال تحقیق که این مقاله در صدد پاسخ به آن است به شکل ذیل می باشد:آیا تاثیر رسانه های اجتماعی بر عملکرد شغلی عادی و نوآورانه بر اساس شیوه استفاده از آن متغیر است؟ و اگر این طور است تا چه حد؟ این سوال بسیار جالب است زیرا رسانه های اجتماعی را می توان به روش های مختلف مورد استفاده قرار داد که همگی این روش ها مستقیما، مناسب برای عملکرد نمی باشند( اثر مثبتی بر روی عملکرد ندارند).
یک مثال جالب، بحث های زیاد در مورد اثر منفی بالقوه برخی از استفاده های رسانه های اجتماعی بر روی بهره وری کارکنان در محافل مدیریتی می باشد. به دلیل همین نگرانی، بسیاری از شرکت ها استفاده از برنامه های رسانه های اجتماعی نظیر فیسبوک، توییتر، یوتیوب و اینستاگرام را در محیط کار ممنوع کرده اند( اکونومیست 2011، فیستر گیل 2013،مایکروسافت 2013). در پاسخ به این محدودیت ها و ممنوعیت ها، این مقاله یک نگاهی نقادانه بر عواقب و اثرات این اقدامات جدی دارد. به طور ویژه، ما بر این احتمال تاکید می کنیم که محدودیت استفاده از رسانه های اجتماعی در محل کار- حتی استفاده لذت جویانه ظاهرا مخرب- ممکن است مانع از دست یابی شرکت ها به مزایای کسب و کار شود( باقین و چوی 2013، فیستر گیل 2013، هوی و شیپیلوف 2012، مایکروسافت 2013، میلر و تاکر 2013).
اهمیت زمینه استفاده
اگرچه اصطلاح” رسانه های اجتماعی” یک اصطلاح چتر برای طیف وسیعی از ابزار ها و برنامه ها می باشد، با این حال چندین ویژگی مشترک در این رابطه وجود دارد. اولا این ابزار ها دارای ماهیت اجتماعی می باشند که تعاملات میان افراد را پشتیبانی می کنند. دوما، آن ها به طور مشترک اشاره به فناوری های مردمی دارند که استفاده از آن ها از کارکنان شروع شده و سپس به کل سازمان نفوذ می کند. در نهایت، بسیاری از ابزار های رسانه های اجتماعی می توانند هم در سرکار و هم در محیط خانه مورد استفاده قرار گیرند و به این ترتیب موجب کمرنگ شدن مرز بین این دو زمینه می گردند. این ویژگی ها، یک سوال جالب را در خصوص شیوه استفاده از رسانه های اجتماعی توسط افراد مختلف و چگونگی تاثیر این استفاده های مختلف بر عملکرد شغلی مطرح کرده اند.
استفاده از فناوری اطلاعات یک متغیر اساسی در تحقیقات و پیاده سازی سیستم های اطلاعاتی محسوب می شود. محققان به این دلیل علاقه مند به موضوع استفاده از فناوری اطلاعات می باشند که فناوری اطلاعات اغلب به عنوان یک شاخص قوی موفقیت سیستم های اطلاعاتی مطرح است( دلون 2003، دلون و مک لین 1992، پیتر و همکاران 2008) و نقش مهمی در مدل های پذیرش سیستم اطلاعاتی، پیاده سازی و برایند های تصمیم گیری ایفا می کند(بارکی و همکاران 2007، بورتون-جونز و استراب2006). متخصصان به موضوع استفاده از فناوری اطلاعات علاقه مند هستند زیرا برای کسب مزیت و ارزیابی ارزش کسب و کار از فناوری اطلاعات لازم است( بویانتون و همکاران 1994، استراب و همکاران 1995). استفاده از فناوری اطلاعات در سطح فردی به عنوان یک سیستم سه سویه که متشکل از کاربر، یک محصول فناوری اطلاعات و یک کار است مفهومی سازی شده است( بارکی و همکاران 2007، بارتون-جونز و استراب 2006). بر طبق این دیدگاه، استفاده از فناوری اطلاعات زمانی رخ می دهد که یک فرد از ویژگی های یک محصول فناوری اطلاعات برای انجام یک کاری که مربوط به اهداف سازمانی یا اهداف فردی از پیش تعریف شده است استفاده کند. نظریه قابلیت با کاوش و بررسی دقیق تر مفهوم استفاده متفاوت نشان می دهد که اقدامات قابل دسترس( فراهم شده برای) یک فرد بستگی به اثرات متقابل قابلیت های فرد و خصوصیات اشیاء در محیط اطراف فرد دارد و هم چنین از این اثرات ناشی می شود(کمرو2003، گیبسون 1977،استوفرگن2003). درک قابلیت ها بستگی به اهداف فرد دارد(کمرو2003، گاور 1991، استوفرگن2003). از این روی، یک برنامه رسانه اجتماعی نظیر فیسبوک می تواند به صورت ارایه یک قابلیت سرگرمی برای افرادی که از آن برای مرور پست ها یا بازی گیم ها استفاده می کنند درک شود و یا این که می تواند به صورت ارایه دسترسی به دانش و تخصص به افرادی که از آن برای درخواست مشاوره از جامعه دوستان خود می کنند در نظر گرفته شود. از این روی، استفاده از فناوری اطلاعات یک پدیده پیچیده ای است که نیازمند تعقل و درک بیشتری است( بارکی و همکاران 2007، بارتون-جونز و استراب 2006).
در رابطه با رسانه های اجتماعی به عنوان یک محصول جالب فناوری اطلاعات می توان گفت که اگرچه ظاهرا شواهدی مبنی بر این وجود دارد که استفاده از ابزار های خاص می تواند اثر مثبتی بر بهره وری و عملکرد کارکنان در محیط کار داشته باشد( برای مثال فیستر گیل 2013، گری و همکاران 2011، مایکروسافت 2013، وو 2013)، با این حال هنوز نیاز مبرمی به درک رابطه بین زمینه های مختلف استفاده از رسانه های اجتماعی و تاثیر آن بر عملکرد احساس می شود. برای مثال، استفاده از لینکدین می تواند یک مزیت جامعه پذیری علاوه بر تسهیم و انتشار دانش را فراهم کند. به طور مشابه، یوتیوب می تواند برای اهداف سرگرمی علاوه بر آموزش و استخدام و کاریابی مورد استفاده قرار گیرد. در نتیجه، مقاله حاضر از یک رویکرد استفاده محور برای درک اثر رسانه های اجتماعی بر سازمان ها استفاده می کند.

Introduction

New technologies bring capabilities not previously available to organizations. Indeed, technological innovations like social media have enriched organizations and enabled a multitude of uses and capabilities from creating new business models and marketing techniques, to improving demand predictions, enabling new management practices and learning practices, and enhancing innovation, knowledge sharing, collaboration and communication (Aral et al., 2013; Bughin and Chui, 2013; Urquhart and Vaast, 2012). It is not surprising then that social media has been broadly characterized as fundamentally changing the way we communicate, collaborate, consume, and create (Aral et al., 2013, p3). Social media’s amplified importance is also reflected by a growing body of literature on this topic (Claussen et al., 2013) and yet existing scholarship only represents a fraction of what can be revealed about social media’s present and future impact in the workplace. Further research is needed to fill knowledge gaps on social media and its use (Aral et al., 2013). Accordingly, the research question addressed in this paper is as follows: if, and to what extent, does the impact of social media on routine and innovative job performance vary depending on how it is used? This question is all the more interesting because social media can be used in a multitude of ways, not all immediately perceived as conducive to performance. A topical example is the great debate within management circles about the potentially negative effect of some social media uses on employee productivity. As a consequence of this concern, many companies have banned social media applications like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram from the workplace (Economist, 2011; Fister Gale, 2013; Microsoft, 2013). In response to these restrictions and prohibitions, this paper takes a critical look at the consequence these drastic measures may yield. In particular, we focus on the possibility that in-office restriction of social media use – even the seemingly disruptive hedonic use – may prevent companies from achieving business benefits (Bughin and Chui, 2013; Fister Gale, 2013; Huy and Shipilov, 2012; Microsoft, 2013; Miller and Tucker, 2013).

The importance of use context

While the term ‘‘social media’’ is an umbrella term for a range of tools and applications, several common threads exists. First, these tools are social in nature, supporting interactions among people. Second, they are commonly referred to as grassroots technology, with use emerging from employees and percolating up the organization. Finally, many social media tools can be used both at work and at home, obscuring the boundary between these two contexts. These characteristics raise an interesting question concerning how social media is used by different people, and how these different uses affect job performance. IT usage is a core variable in IS research and practice. Researchers are interested in IT usage because it is often seen as a strong indicator of IS success (DeLone, 2003; DeLone and McLean, 1992; Petter et al., 2008), and it plays an important role in models of IS acceptance, implementation, and decision making outcomes (Barki et al., 2007; Burton-Jones and Straub, 2006). Practitioners are interested in IT usage because it is necessary for deriving benefits from- and assessing the business value of – IT (Boynton et al., 1994; Straub et al., 1995). Individual-level IT usage has been conceptualized as a three-way system comprised of the individual user, an IT artifact, and a task (Barki et al., 2007; Burton-Jones and Straub, 2006). According to this view, IT usage occurs when an individual uses features of an IT artifact to accomplish a task that is associated with a predefined individual or organizational goal. Drilling deeper into the notion of differentiated usage, affordances theory indicates that the actions available (afforded) to a person depend upon, and emerge from, an interaction between the person’s abilities and the properties of objects in the person’s environment (Chemero, 2003; Gibson, 1977; Stoffregen, 2003). Perceiving affordances depend on one’s goals (Chemero, 2003; Gaver, 1991; Stoffregen, 2003). Hence, a social media application such as Facebook can be perceived as providing an affordance of entertainment for those using it to browse posts or play games, or it can be perceived as affording access to knowledge and expertise by those using it to solicit advice from their community of friends. Hence, IT usage is a complex phenomenon that requires additional conceptualizations (Barki et al., 2007; BurtonJones and Straub, 2006). Returning to social media as the IT artifact of interest, while there appears to be anecdotal evidence that the use of specific tools can positively impact employee productivity and performance within the workplace (e.g. Fister Gale, 2013; Gray et al., 2011; Microsoft, 2013; Wu, 2013), there is still a need to understand the relationship between different use contexts of social media and their impact on performance. For example, the usage of LinkedIn can afford a socialization benefit as well as knowledge sharing and dissemination. Similarly, YouTube can be used for entertainment as well as training and recruitment. Consequently, this paper takes a use-focused approach to understanding the impact of social media on organizations.

روابط بین مسافرت روزانه و سرمایه اجتماعی در بین مردان و زنان در جنوب سوئد

Relationships Between Commuting and Social Capital Among Men and Women in Southern Sweden

Abstract

The societal need for a mobile workforce increases time spent commuting and thus also the total workday. How this affects individual well-being and social life is, however, surprisingly little known. We investigated the relation between commuting time and mode, and social participation and general trust in other people as measures of social capital, using data from public health surveys conducted in 2004 and 2008 in Scania, Sweden: in all, 21,088 persons ages 18 to 65 and working at least 30 hr per week. Commuting by car was significantly associated with a higher prevalence of low social participation and low general trust compared with active commuting, and the association increased with the duration of commuting time. In contrast, public commuting was not significantly associated with decreased social capital measures except among long-duration commuters, who reported lower social participation. The overall pattern was similar for men and for women.

It has been claimed that commuting, traveling from the home to the workplace, increases material wealth (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, 2009; Swedish Government Official Report, 2007). Enlarged job regions create more opportunities for work and strengthen the economy for both individuals and society. A more flexible and accessible labor market for companies is created by making the workforce available over larger geographical areas. Individuals are given increased opportunities to find jobs and select places to live. For these reasons, there is political will in many countries to expand labor market areas, resulting in an increase in overall commuting (European Policy Brief, 2008; Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, 2009). In Sweden, the average commuting distance has increased from 10 km in 1970 to 15.6 km in 2005 (The Swedish Board of Housing, Building, and Planning, 2005).

There is a concern among researchers that increased mobility in society is increasing the geographical spread of individuals’ social networks, reducing their engagement in neighborhoods and thereby threatening social welfare by lowering the sense of security and belonging on a local level (Bergström, 2010). However, there are surprisingly few data from population-based epidemiological studies exploring the individual and community effects of everyday commuting.

Social capital is a resource emerging from social relations in a society that can be used to solve problems of an individual or a collective nature (Bourdieu, 1986; Ferlander, 2007; Kawachi, Kennedy, & Glass, 1999; Putnam, 2000). “Social capital is the glue that holds societies together and without which there can be no economic growth or human well-being” (World Bank Social Capital Initiative, 1998, p. iii); it is often defined as a social network that creates benefits from the interaction between the individuals in the network (Bourdieu, 1986; Cullen & Whiteford, 2001).

According to Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988), social capital exists in the structure of the social network—in contrast to economic capital, which exists in the bank, and human capital, which exists in the mind. Thus, social capital exists not in the person who possesses the resource but in that individual’s relations to other persons (Portes, 1998). Through civic participation, norms of reciprocity and trust are established, and cooperation leads to mutual benefits (Kawachi, Kennedy, Lochner, & Prothrow-Stith, 1997). Lower levels of social capital can be associated with consequences for the individual and society, such as tax evasion, low levels of political engagement, bad health, and poor educational performance (Coleman, 1988; Feng & Boyle, 2013; Putnam, 2000)

نظریه اصلاح شده حسابداری مدیریتی: به منظور افزایش ارتباط تحقیق

Management Accounting Theory Revisited: Seeking to Increase Research Relevance

مبتدی (مناسب برای درک مفهوم کلی مطلب) (ترجمه به صورت ناقص انجام شده است)

F1937

مقاله انگلیسی رایگان (PDF)

ترجمه فارسی رایگان (PDF)

خرید ترجمه با فرمت ورد

بخشی از ترجمه فارسی مقاله:

1- مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي وناديده گرفتن سازمان ها
با صحبت درباره مشاركت اعضاي كارخانه ها درپروژه تحقيقي مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي در كنفرانس هاي بزرگ ،جالب است كه بدانيم چندتا ازمحققان جوان ازتئوري سازمان به عنوان طرحي براي كارهايشان استفاده كرده اند. به نظر مي رسد تئوري سازماني امروزه جنبش زيادي ايجادكرده است. علي رغم رشد اخير آن ،كاربرد تئوري سازماني براي فهم پديده هاي مرتبط با مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي جديدا صورت گرفته است. در اواسط سال2000ابزارهاي مفهومي به كار رفته و درتحقيقات مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي گسترش يافت(آگيلارا2007.كامپ بل 2007، ماتن ومون2008). ذكر شده كه مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي در بردارنده يكي ازجوانب جامعه مي باشد كه باتوجه به آن اشخاص مي توانندتصور كنند كه تئوري سازماني براي فهم مسئوليت هاي اجتماعي شركتي همانند يك ذره بين مي كند. دركل به نظر ميرسد كه تئوري سازماني درست مركز آن چيزي كه كل مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي در باره آن است قرار داشته باشد. همانند نقل قول ذكر شده در مقدمه كتابچه آكسفورد نسبي سازمان (مورگان2010) :
موضوعي كه ما به آن علاقمند هستيم را مي توانيم معرفي كنيم كه چطور اشكال ؛نتايج و پويايي هاي سازمان اقتصادي (شركتها،شبكه ها، بازارها)تحت تاثير قرار گرفته اند وتوسط موسسات اجتماعي ديگر شكل گرفته اند(…) وچه نتايجي بر رشد اقتصادي ، آيين نامه ها،اشتغال و بي عدالتي دارد. موسسات نيز همانند (…)قوانيني رسمي وغير رسمي ،مقررات،هنجارها وتفاهم هايي كه موجب محدود شدن رفتار مي شوند محدود شده اند.
عادلانه كه بگوييم در تاريخچه مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي جوانب اجتماعيمسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي ذكر نشده است . دربيشتر تاريخچه ازعنصراجتماعي به عنوان يك جعبه سياه ، مجموعه اي ازنيازهاي خارجي كه تبديل به يك مورد منطقي ، كنش گرا، سودمند وشخصي برابر مشاركت اجتماعي شركت شده اند ياد مي شود(ماركوييس و والش2003). اين مورد توسط يك سري ازموضوعات گسترده درمورد تاريخچهمسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي ذكر شده است،(د باكر2005،لاكت2006)همانند بيشتر تحليل هاي انتقادي صورت گرفته ازمسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي (باتوجي2007،هانلون2008). همانطور كه كاميبل بيان كرد(2007) تاريخچهمسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي بيشتر توصيفي وياهنجاري مي باشد. در اين صورت بخش عمده اي ازتحقيقات تجربي اختصاص دارد به ارتباط بينمسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي وتاثيرش برعملكردمالي شركت(ارليتزكي2003). باگسترش علوم اجتماعي مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي قادر به شرح وجود بازار ميباشد(وونگل2006).اينها شواهد قدرتمندي براي شركتها ومديرانشان مي باشند كه بايد خيلي مسئولانه عمل كنند.
تمركز برشركت به عنوان هنرپيشه اصلي در عملكرد مصوب اجتماعي در زمينه شخصي ودرروش بررسي وفهم مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي خصوصا درمدارس تجارت يك اصل مي باشد. اگرچه تعاريف معمولمسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي شامل وظايف اجباري همچون پذيرش قانون ياايجاد محيطي براي انتظارات اجتماعي مي باشد(كارول1999).موضوع تكراري كه درمباحث مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي وجود دارد همان عملكرد اختياري شركتها مي باشد. به عنوان مثال وونگل 2006) مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي رابه صورت شيوه هايي كه ازطريق مشخص سازي اعمالي كه شركتها به طور قانوني نياز است كه انجام دهندوپيشرفت كارخانه مي شوندوبراي جامعه سود آور هستند،معرفي كرده است(P02). اين ديدگاه نشان دهنده برترين تئوري نمایندگی به عنوان روش براي فهم ماهيت شركت در بررسي ها شخصي ومديريتي مي باشد(كارانا2007). بطورمشابه اين تاكيددارد برفلسفه اختياري كه مجددا دراسناد سياسي انجمن هاي شخصي مطرح شده است(كيندرمن2012). قطعا ،حتي ابتكارات سياسي عمومي نيزچالشي براي اين فرض محسوب نمي شود. براي مثال ،كميسيون اروپايي(P62001)برگ سبز ازمسئوليت هاي اجتماعي به عنوان يك مفهومي كه به وسيله آن شركتها موضوعات اجتماعي ومحيطي را در فعاليتهاي شخصي شان ودرتعاملاتشان با دارندگان سرمايه ادغام مي كنند، ياد ميكند.
در اواخر دهه گذشته بحث هاي تحقيقي موجود در زمينه مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي كمتر صورت گرفت اما اين مباحث به فهم بيشتر مسئوليت هاي اجتماعي كمك كرد.همان طور كه يك سري ازبررسي ها نشان دادند نتايج اين تحقيق چندان معتبرنيستند(ارليزكي2008). اين مطلب كه شركتها براي افزايش كارايي شركتشان در طرح هايمسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي مشاركت دارند مي تواند توضيح دهنده اين مورد باشد كه آيا شركت ها برنتايج مصوب اجتماعي تاثير دارنديا ندارند؟
اين مرتبط است با دومين ويژگي يعني جهاني سازي و تاثيرش بر بررسي هاي شخصي. اگرمسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي يكي ديگر از روش هاي افزايش سود است مي توان اين سوال رامطرح كرد كه چراشكل هاي مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي درمناطق وكشورهاي جهاني بسيار متفاوت است. علاوه بر اين اين سوال هم پيش مي آيد چرامسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي به عنوان بهترين روش تحقيقي در آمريكاي شمالي يا انجلو ساكسون به بخش هاي ديگر اقتصادي جهاني نيزگسترش يافته است. براي اين توضيح اين مورد با انجام بحث هاي كمي در زمينه حداكثر سازي كارايي وسود به نظر ميرسد كه خريدها از زمانيكه شركتهاي موفق در اروپاي غربي به پيشرفت خودشان بدون توجه به (ماتن ومون2008) مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي ومفاهيم مرتبط ادامه دادند محدود شده است.
سومين ويژگي به دنبال مشخص سازي نقش مشاركت خصوصي درحوزه هاي عمومي در دو دهه گذشته مي باشد. علاقمندي بهمسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي توسط طرح سوالاتي در رابطه باتاثير مشاركتها برمردم بومي(بانوجي2000)، شرايط كار در كشورهاي درحال توسعه فعاليت هاي محيطي وسياسي در دموكراتهاي توسعه يافته(كروچ2004)افزايش يافته است. اين موضوعات نشان دهنده اين است كه توانايي و وظايف شركت ازعمده ترين موضوعات عمومي مي باشد. شركتها برنتايج اشتغال،مصرف،كيفيت محيطي،بي عدالتي اجتماعي و موضوعات ديگراثر مي گذارند. تاثير شركت ها بر شيوه ها وابزارهاي فرهنگي مدرن نيز همان طوركه بحث هاي صورت گرفته در رابطه با McDonaldizationوStarbuckization(رتيزر2010)وDisneyization درحوزه مصرفي(برايمان1999)همچنين فهم جنسيت نشان مي دهد نيزگسترش يافته است.درهرصورت از بحران مالي سال2008ما توان يك درس مهم آموخت:بودجه محدود شركتهاي خصوصي به صورت بودجه متراكم جامعه دوباره جمع آوري شود.
تلاش به فهم عملكرد شركت فقط محدود به بررسي مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي نيست. همان طور كه بارلي بيان مي كند تاريخچه مديريت به فهم ارتباط بين مشاغل و محيط هايش (اقتصادي،اجتماعي،سياسي،تكنيكي)كمك مي كند
ازسال 1960،تئوري هاي سازماني بيشتر وقتشان را صرف گسترش تئوري هايي درباره اينكه چطور محيط ها برسازمان ها تاثير مي گذارندوچطورسازمانها بريكديگر تاثير مي گذارند،مي كنند. اكنون وقت آن رسيده كه تئوري هاي سازمان توجه بيشتري به اينكه چطورسازمانها محيط هايشان راتغيير مي دهند وحتي ايجاد مي كنند خصوصا بخش هاي سازمانهاي بيروني كه توجه كمي به آنها مي شود،بكنند.
بنابراين چندان شگفت انگيز نيست كه افزايش علايق محققان مسئوليت اجتماعي شركتي به تئوري سازماني هم زمان با افزايش تاثير تئوري سازمان برتحقيقات مديريتي بوده باشدو دربررسي هاي شخصي بين الملل از تئوري سازمان به منظور فهم روشي كه شركت هاي چندمليتي وظايف جهاني شدن رامديريتشان استفاده زيادي مي شود(وستي وزاهير2001،گيپرت2006،جك سون وديگ2008).

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

1. Corporate Social Responsibility research and its strange neglect of institutions Talking to the participants of doctoral workshops on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) research at major conferences these days, it is quite striking to discover how many young scholars have discovered institutional theory as a framework for their work. Institutional theory seems all the rage these days. This, however, has not always been the case. Despite its recent growth, the application of institutional theory to understand CSR-related phenomena is a rather recent development. Only in the mid-2000s did a literature emerge which broadened the array of conceptual tools used in CSR research (Aguilera et al., 2007; Campbell, 2007; Matten and Moon, 2008). Given that C‘S’R includes the aspect of ‘society’ already in its very label, one would have thought that institutional theory would have been a core conceptual lens in understanding the ‘social’ responsibilities of business all along. After all, in its very definition, institutional theory appears to be right at the centre of what CSR is all about, as this quote from the introduction to The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Institutional Analysis shows (Morgan et al., 2010, p. 3): The field [in which] we are interested can be defined in how the forms, outcomes, and dynamics of economic organisation (firms, networks, markets) are influenced and shaped by other social institutions […] and with what consequences for economic growth, innovation, employment, and inequality. Institutions are usually defined […] as formal or informal rules, regulations, norms, and understandings that constrain and enable behaviour. It is fair to say that the literature on CSR, most of it published in management or business studies journals, has neglected the societal aspects of CSR by and large. Most of the literature has treated the ‘social’ element as a black box, as a set of external requirements which are translated into a functionalist, instrumental and business case rationale for social engagement by companies (Margolis and Walsh, 2003). This is certainly reflected by some of the meta studies of the CSR literature (De Bakker et al., 2005; Lockett et al., 2006) as well as more critical analysis of CSR as a subfield of management (Banerjee, 2007; Hanlon, 2008). As Campbell (2007) argues, the CSR literature has been mostly either descriptive or normative. In this vein, the bulk of empirical research has investigated the relationship between CSR and its impact on the financial performance of the firm (Orlitzky et al., 2003). The strong fascination with the business case for CSR is a noteworthy phenomenon in itself—to the extent that social science would be able to demonstrate the existence of a market for virtue (Vogel, 4 S. Brammer et al. by guest on December 20, 2014 http://ser.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from 2006), this evidence would also be a powerful normative argument for firms and their managers to behave in more responsible ways. The focus on the firm as the pivotal actor in initiating socially desirable behaviour on the part of business has been institutionalized into the way of conceptualizing and studying CSR, particular within business schools. While common definitions of CSR include mandatory responsibilities, such as legal compliance, or make reference to societal expectations (Carroll, 1999), a recurring theme in the CSR debate is its grounding in the voluntary behaviour of companies. For example, Vogel (2006) describes CSR in terms of ‘practices that improve the workplace and benefit society in ways that go above and beyond what companies are legally required to do’ (p. 2). This view reflects the dominance of agency theory as a way of understanding the nature of the firm in business/management studies (Garriga and Mele´, 2004) and the relegation of business ethics to the sidelines (Khurana, 2007). This same emphasis on voluntarism is something that recurs in policy documents of leading business associations (Kinderman, 2012). Indeed, even major public policy initiatives have not challenged this core assumption. For example, the European Commission (2001, p. 6) Green Paper defines social responsibility as ‘a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis’. Over the last decade, the scholarly debate on CSR has slowly but steadily registered a growing unrest about this rather limited approach to understanding the social responsibilities of business. A first reservation has to do with the rather limited value of a business-centred approach to CSR research. As a number of studies have suggested, the results of this strand of research are, at best, inconclusive (Orlitzky, 2008). The argument that businesses engage in CSR just as one of many other ways of increasing the firm’s performance seems patently unfit to explain why businesses engage or disengage in socially desirable outcomes. This is closely related to a second aspect, namely the advent of globalization and its influence on business studies. If CSR is just another way of increasing profits, it begs the question of why forms of CSR differ so vastly among regions and countries globally. Furthermore, it raises the question of why CSR as a mostly North American or, at best, Anglo-Saxon idea has only rather recently spread to other parts of the global economy. To explain this with a rather limited set of arguments around efficiency and profit maximization appears to have rather limited purchase, since many highly successful companies in Japan and Western Europe continue to thrive without much serious ‘explicit’ (Matten and Moon, 2008) attention to CSR and related concepts. A third aspect, however, has to do with a growing scrutiny of the role of private corporations in the public sphere over the last two decades. Interest in CSR has been sparked by questions around the impact of corporations on indigenous Corporate Social Responsibility and institutional theory 5 by guest on December 20, 2014 http://ser.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from people (Banerjee, 2000), working conditions in developing countries (Radin and Calkins, 2006), the environment (Jermier et al., 2006) and political campaigns in developed democracies (Crouch, 2004). These issues have demonstrated that the private firm is something much more than just a profit-driven economic actor in society. Corporations are not just passive players in a global economy whose social impacts follow a simple profit-maximization rationale with little relevance beyond the confines of the corporate sphere. The corporation has always been a political creation—the state granted the corporation the benefit of limited liability in order to facilitate the accumulation of capital. Early corporations received limited liability initially to pursue the public interest but slowly spread throughout the economy (Roy, 1997). This extension of limited liability created a fundamental issue of corporate governance. But it is not simply a matter of how managers are to be made accountable to the more diffuse group of shareholders as agency theory tells us, but a more fundamental issue of what responsibilities society places on the corporation itself in exchange for the legal privilege of limited liability. Corporate power and responsibility are matters of public concern (for an excellent conceptual overview, see Parkinson, 1993). Corporations have a decisive impact on outcomes of employment, consumption, environmental quality, social inequality and a host of other issues. The influence of corporations penetrates into the very fabric of modern cultural understandings and practices, as documented by the debates surrounding ‘McDonaldization’, ‘Starbuckization’ (Ritzer, 2010) and ‘Disneyization’ in the sphere of consumption (Bryman, 1999) as well as surrounding understandings of gender (Orenstein, 2011). Indeed, the post-2008 era of financial crisis has taught an important lesson: the limited liability of the privately owned corporation has re-emerged as the collective liability of society. The attempt to broaden the lens on understanding business behaviour is, however, not confined to the study of CSR. As Barley (2007, p. 214) argues, the management literature in general has yet to take such a broader understanding of the relationship between business and its (economic, social, political, technical, etc.) environments seriously: Since the 1960s, organizational theorists have spent most of their time developing theories of how environments affect organizations and, more recently, how organizations affect each other. It is time for organizational theorists to pay much closer attention to how organizations alter and even create their environments, especially institutional sectors that lie outside the economy and that get little attention. It is therefore not surprising that a growing interest in institutional theory among CSR scholars has coincided with a growing influence of institutional theory on management research in general. Most notably, international business studies 6 S. Brammer et al. by guest on December 20, 2014 http://ser.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from have seen a steep rise in adapting institutional theory to understanding the way multinational corporations (MNCs) manage their operations globally (Westney and Zaheer, 2001; Geppert et al., 2006; Jackson and Deeg, 2008). This growing interest in institutional theory in this subfield of management studies is by no means coincidental. Rather, it echoes some of important benefits this theoretical lens may bring to the study of CSR.

انعطاف پذیری تیم توسعه سیستم های اطلاعات و سرمایه اجتماعی خارجی

External social capital and information systems development team flexibility

Abstract

Context ISD research based on the socio-technical perspective suggests that two sources of socio-technical change have a bearing on the performance of information systems development (ISD) projects: business requirements and development technology. To enhance project effectiveness, ISD teams need to enhance their flexibility in the face of the constant changes taking place from business and technical environments in which they operate. Flexibility is conceptualized as an outcome of capability development through constantly integrating and reconfiguring available resources within and outside of the organization where the team is embedded.

Objective The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between a team’s external social capital and team flexibility. More specifically, based on social capital theory, this study argues that external social capital leads to IS team flexibility, which in turn contributes to the successful project performance.

Method A survey design was selected to collect data and test the proposed model. A snowballing strategy was employed to collect data. 118 information systems developers participated in the survey and the model was analyzed using partial least squares regression.

Results: The findings show that, in general, the ISD teams’ external social capital do contribute to the team’s response to changes. However, they exhibit unique impacts on ISD team flexibility respectively.  Results The findings show that, in general, the ISD teams’ external social capital does contribute to the team’s response to changes. However, they exhibit unique impacts on ISD team flexibility respectively.

Conclusion The various external social capitals have distinctive effects on a team’s flexibility. Specifically, horizontal relationships are positively associated with both business and technology flexibility. Vertical relationships are positively associated with business flexibility and market relationships technology flexibility. ISD managers should establish robust relationships with its high-ups, other lateral units, and third parties outside in the market. They also need to be more adaptive to the increasingly volatile socio-technical environment, and proactively search, exploit, upgrade, and integrate resources that are essential to the development of system development team flexibility.

1 Introduction

According to a survey conducted by research firm Standish Group, United States investment in information systems development (ISD) projects in 2001 was four times that reported in 1990. However, success rate was a mere 28% [35]. Figures remained troublesome in 2009. ISD project success rate was 32%, 44% of projects were over budget and time estimated, and 24% failed outright [44]. These statistics suggest that many efforts to improve project management barely help to increase success. A high success rate is crucial to technology-backboned modern organizations. Project failures not only waste resources and lead to foregone business opportunities, but impact reputations and profits as well.

ISD research based on the socio-technical perspective suggests that performance of ISD projects is excessively affected by rapid changes in both business requirement and systems development technology [5,21,24]. Therefore, system development team flexibility (SDTF) has been proposed to play an essential role in determining project performance to hedge against high-velocity environments [14,17]. To do so, ISD teams need to integrate and reconfigure available resources in a timely manner. Based on dynamic capability perspective, SDTF in this study is conceptualized as an outcome of capability development through constantly integrating and reconfiguring available resources within and without the organization where the team is embedded [27].

Previous works on software development largely focused on a wide range of team processes, practices, or routines associated with development activities (e.g., planning, execution, and result appraisal) in an attempt to facilitate control of the project [11,29]. However, in volatile socio-technical environments, these practices become less effective as outputs of ISD projects tend to evolve throughout the development process [8]. In addition, resources available for a team are often circumscribed. This means that teams cannot possibly possess all the requisite resources, potentially restricting their options in response to problems due to abrupt and unexpected changes and eventually influencing project performance. To enhance project effectiveness, ISD teams are called upon to span traditional boundary and establish external linkages to access informative, financial, and administrative resources and support in a timely manner [7,12]. However, current research lacks a theoretical explanation on what these external linkages are and how they facilitate ISD teams to deliver systems successfully.

This research employs the social capital theory as theoretical lens to elucidate how external social capital enhances project performance. It argues that resources embedded in the interaction ties lead to resources exchanged and combination, which in turn result in value creation [45]. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between a team’s external social capital and team flexibility. It argues that social capital flowing from entrenched external connections lead to ISD team flexibility, which in turn contributes to successful project performance at the end. The underlying thrust is that external relationships developed through protracted interactions provide conduits through which valuable resources can be exchanged and integrated by ISD team. By integrating and reassembling exchanged resources, the ISD team can generate innovative ideas and problem solving solutions to respond effectively to changes arising from capricious socio-technical contexts.

We validated the proposed research model by surveying 118 information systems developers across various industries. Findings reveal that, in general, ISD teams’ external social capitals do contribute to project performance through team flexibility. However, each type of external social capital exhibited unique impact on flexibility outcomes. Results of this study likewise confirmed that ISD team flexibility directly impacts project performance. Both academic and practical implications of findings are discussed toward the end of this paper.

مبتدی (مناسب برای درک مفهوم کلی مطلب)

F1844

چهارم: واقعیت انتشار سرمایه از طریق پراکندگی مالکیت سهام و جداسازی بین مالکیت رسمی قانونی و مالکیت واقعی اقتصادی، مقوله “طبقه” را به عنوان یک مقوله ای بی مورد جلوه می دهد.
پنجم، نادیده گرفتن این واقعیت که در مرحله دوم مدرنیته، جهان پیشرفته سرمایه داری, چیزی را آشکار می کند که Beck آن را “سرمایه داری بدون طبقات” می نامد، وجود دارد. در حالی که احتمالاً درست است که “موفقیت جمعی با مبارزه طبقاتی”, مسئول ریشه کن کردن ایده و واقعیت طبقات اجتماعی است؛ اما واقعیت این است که “طبقه” با مقوله “فردیت سازی” جایگزین می شود، هرچند که با نابرابری پس از طبقه و پس از اشکال ملی افراطی همراه می شود. به طور خلاصه، همان طور که Beck می گوید، “برای اولین بار در تاریخ، فرد به جای طبقه، به واحد اساسی تکثیر اجتماعی تبدیل می شود”.
این انتقادات در مورد استفاده از مقوله “طبقه” دارای درجه ای از اعتبار است، اما، همانطور که در زیر بحث می شود، ناکارآمد نیست، زیرا درون یک رویکرد مارکسیستی به اندازه کافی می تواند مورد توجه قرار گیرد.
اولاً، در حالی که درست است که محققان مارکسیست اغلب به استفاده از مدل دو طبقه در تحلیل خود تمایل دارند، این مورد اغلب همانند یک مختصرنویسی مناسب برای تحلیل طبقه است. بیشتر نویسندگان مارکسیستی پارا فراتر گذاشته اند و به طبقات دیگر پرداخته اند (دهقانان، صاحبان زمین، و غیره)، به ویژه طبقات متوسط یا میان ی. تعیین طبقات متوسط یا میانی, یک فرایند پیچیده است. برای اینکه اگر تمایز مارکس بین کار مولد و کار غیرمولد برای این هدف مورد استفاده قرار می گرفت، بسیاری از افراد در طبقه متوسط در تعریف طبقه کارگر قرار می گرفتند. مارکس به این نکته اشاره کرده بود که “از نقطه نظر تولید سرمایه داری”، “نیروی کار در صورتی مولد است که مستقیماً برای سرمایه ارزش قائل شود یا ارزش های مازاد را خلق کند”. اما تمایز بین کار مولد و غیرمولد، همان طور که مارکس مشخص نمود، به محتوای تعیین شده یا ارزش استفاده آن مربوط نمی شود. در حقیقت، همانگونه که مارکس خاطرنشان کرد، “یک نوع نیروی کار می تواند مولد یا غیرمولد باشد.
خواننده ای که آهنگ خود را برای حساب خود به فروش می رساند، یک نیروی کار غیر کارآمد است. اما همان خواننده که توسط یک کارآفرین به منظور کسب درآمد برای کارآفرین به کار گرفته شده است، یک کارگر تولیدی است؛ زیرا او سرمایه را تولید می کند. بنابراین، تمایز بین نیروی کار مولد و غیرمولد باید با معیارهای دیگری مانند تمایز بین کار فکری و دستی به منظور رده بندی افراد / حرفه ها در طبقه متوسط یا میانی ترکیب شود. Resnick و Wolff یک نقشه دقیق از طبقات را با استفاده از معیارهای مختلف پیشنهاد می کنند. بر اساس گمان مارکس که فرآیند طبقاتی چیزی است که در آن “نیروی کار مازاد بدون پرداخت پول از تولیدکنندگان مستقیم هدایت می شود”، آنها تمایز قائل شدن بین “طبقات اساسی” و “طبقات رده بندی شده” را ادامه می دهند.
“طبقات رده بندی “شده به افرادی اطلاق می شود که نه کار انجام می دهند و نه کار اضافی می کنند. در عوض، آنها وظایف خاص اجتماعی خاص خود را انجام می دهند و خود را با استفاده از سهام اضافی کار استخراج شده که توسط یکی از طبقات استخراج اساسی استخراج شده است حفظ می کنند. ” طبقات رده بندی شده, “برخی از شرایط موجود – غیر اقتصادی و همچنین اقتصادی – از فرآیند طبقه اساسی” را ارائه می دهند.
Resnick و Wolff دو نوع طبقات رده بندی شده را متمایز می کنند: “نوع 1 شامل مدیران فرایندهای اجتماعی می شود که شرایط وجود برای فرایند طبقه بنیادی سرمایه داری هستند؛ و نوع 2، عملگران هدایت شده در این فرآیندها (که می تواند توسط طبقات رده بندی شده نوع 1 یا توسط سرمایه داران استفاده شود). ” نوع 1 شامل تجار، مزدوران و ملاکان خواهد بود. در محیط یک شرکت، افراد نوع I شامل سهامداران و مدیران بازاریابی، فروش، نظارت، تبلیغات، حسابداری، خدمات حقوقی و غیره می شوند. نوع 2 شامل افرادی مانند معلمان عمومی، ابتدایی یا دبیرستان، فروشندگان شاغل سرمایه داران ، و یا جمع کنندگان اجاره استخدام شده توسط صاحبان زمین می شوند. با این حال، افراد می توانند موقعیت های طبقاتی مختلف را در فعالیت ها و موقعیت های مختلف اشغال کنند. Resnick و Wolff نتیجه گیری می کنند که “جامعه به خاطر نظریه مارکسیستی همیشه یک شکل پیچیده از تعامل طبقات بنیادی و رده بندی شده است؛ این یک تشکیل اجتماعی است. لزوماً نباید با طبقه بندی آنها در مورد طبقات اساسی و زیرمجموعه موافقت کرد. اما آنچه آنها به اندازه کافی نشان می دهند این است که نقشه برداری از طبقات فراتر از طبقه بندی دو-مدل به منظور دربرگرفتن واقعیت های اجتماعی پیچیده امکان پذیر است. چنین نقشه ای به نوبه خود می تواند برای درک واکنش های مختلف طبقات اجتماعی به رژیم های مختلف حقوق بین الملل استفاده شود.
ثانیا، این انتقاد که رده «طبقه» محدود است یا طبقات در آن تعریف می شوند, این حوزه اقتصادی به تنهایی کاملاً درست نیست. به عنوان مثال، پولانزاس، صرفاً تعیین خالص اقتصادی طبقات را رد می کند. به گفته وی، “یک طبقه اجتماعی می تواند در سطح اقتصادی، در سطح سیاسی و یا در سطح الهیات شناسایی شود و بنابراین می تواند با توجه به یک نمونه خاص, جایگاهی داشته باشد”. به منظور فراتر رفتن از ایده های طبقاتی اقتصادی، پولانتزا به تمایز کارهای مولد و غیرمولد می پردازد که کار دستی و ذهنی را اضافه می کند، و در تقاطع دو طبقه است که او طبقات را در سطوح سیاسی و ایدئولوژیک قرار می دهد. به نظر وی، “فقط کارگران دستی تولیدی باید بخشی از پرولتاریا باشند”. زیرا، علیرغم کارمندان دارای حقوق و دستمزد، موقعیت سیاسی و ایدئولوژیک طبقه متوسط، به ویژه کسانی که بخشی از دنیای در حال رشد (که اصطلاحات نگری) تولید نامطلوب و بخش خدمات هستند، متفاوت از طبقه کاری است. کورتل موقعیت پولانتز را خلاصه می کند:
طبقه کارگر با تقابل کار مولد (تعیین اقتصادی) و کار دستی (تعین سیاسی و ایدئولوژیک) تعریف می شود و به واسطه تأثیرات خود بر موقعیت میانجی با توجه به ضدآمیزی بورژوازی و پرولتاریا, کارگران دستمزدبگیر غیر پرولتری باید به عنوان “خرده بورژوازی جدید” در نظر گرفته می شوند.

چرا شبکه ها پیشرفت ایجاد سرمایه گذاری جدید را بهبود می بخشند؟ تاثیر شناخت و سرمایه اجتماعی

Why Networks Enhance the Progress of New Venture Creation: The Influence of Social Capital and Cognition

Why does social capital influence the progress of new venture creation for some entrepreneurs more than others? Our investigation suggests that social capital is not enough; that the type of person involved in network relationships matters to new venture creation. We test the effects of the interplay of social capital and cognition on a sample of 269 entrepreneurs. Our results confirm that social networks and relational capital enhance levels of illusion of control, which is directly related to the progress of new venture creation. We find marginal support for the relationship between social capital and risk propensity.

1 Introduction

Entrepreneurship is a field of business that seeks to understand how opportunities to create something new are discovered or created by individuals who then use various means to exploit or develop them, and in doing so produce a wide range of outcomes (Baron & Shane, 2005). This perspective of entrepreneurship reflects the core of entrepreneurship research—the investigation into how and why opportunities are discovered and exploited. Entrepreneurship is significant on many levels as evidenced not only in public policy initiatives that encourage new business development but also within established organizations that actively encourage the development and pursuit of new opportunities. While the impact of entrepreneurship to economic progress is apparent, knowledge of the factors that encourage opportunity exploitation remains ambiguous. This ambiguity has spawned a vast theoretical and empirical literature that seeks to identify the antecedents to individual entrepreneurial behavior—seeking a model of new venture creation.

Research has pointed to the importance of networking and building social capital to the new venture creation process (e.g., Baron & Markman, 2003; DeCarolis & Saparito, 2006; Liao & Welsch, 2005; Ostgaard & Birley, 1996). In particular, it has been argued that new venture creation is the result of the interplay of entrepreneurs’ social networks and cognitive biases. As the presence of entrepreneurial opportunities in a network increase, the odds of entrepreneurial behavior increase, but only if someone is inclined toward entrepreneurial behavior (Burt, 1992; DeCarolis & Saparito, 2006). Accordingly, DeCarolis and Saparito argued that cognitive biases may explain why social capital has a greater effect on the progress of new venture creation for some entrepreneurs but not others. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986; Wood & Bandura, 1989) posits that social environments play an important role in shaping individuals’ cognition, and ultimately, their behavior. This perspective appears to support Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000, p. 218) view of entrepreneurship as “the nexus of two phenomena: the presence of lucrative opportunities and the presence of enterprising individuals.” Thus, we examine how external (social capital) and internal factors (cognition) affect new venture creation and progression. We expect that individuals with the greatest social capital, coupled with the enhanced propensity to enterprise, will make the greatest progress in creating a new venture.

Drawing from DeCarolis and Saparito’s (2006) work on the importance of social capital and cognition in explaining the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities, we develop and test a model of new venture creation that incorporates the influence of social capital and cognition on the progress of new venture creation. Accordingly, this paper makes several contributions to the entrepreneurship literature. First, we extend research on the progression of new venture creation by exploring the impact of social capital on individual cognition. Second, this paper helps to explain why social capital may encourage some individuals to start new ventures but not others. Third, we show how two specific types of social capital—social networks and relational capital—contribute to the progression of new venture creation. We believe this is an important distinction in the literature as our model suggests that networks and cognition impact the activities undertaken by entrepreneurs to build their businesses. Finally, this study adds to the understanding of entrepreneurial cognitive factors by applying social cognitive theory (Wood & Bandura, 1989) to examine how behavior (the progress of new venture creation) is influenced by the interplay between social capital and cognition. Specifically, we consider two cognitive biases—illusion of control and risk propensity—that may be particularly salient to the new venture creation process. Illusion of control might help to explain entrepreneurs’ tenacity in building businesses given that research on new product development has found that it has a profound effect on problem recognition and escalation of commitment to a failing course of action (Keil, Depledge, & Rai, 2007). Risk propensity focuses on how individuals frame decisions under conditions of uncertainty (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), and therefore may explain why only certain individuals choose to exploit opportunities identified in their environment.

In the following sections, we review relevant literature and formulate hypotheses regarding social capital and cognitive characteristics, as well as the progress of new venture creation. We then test the hypotheses using a sample of 269 entrepreneurs, who are alumni of a major U.S. Eastern university. A discussion of the results is followed by suggestions for future academic research and implications for entrepreneurs.