Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
“Social capital” – A focus on the structure of relationships at work and knowledge networks.
« Social capital is the contextual complement to human capital. The social capital metaphor is that the people who do better are somehow better connected » (Burt, 2000, p. 347). « Social structure is a kind of capital that can create for certain individuals or groups a competitive advantage in pur-suing their ends. Better connected people enjoy higher returns » (Burt, 2000, p. 348) and (about knowledge networks) « organizations store knowledge in their procedures, norms, rules, and forms. They accumulate such knowledge over time, learning from their members. At the same time individuals in organization are socialized to organizational beliefs”(March, 1991, p. 73). Similarly to Burt’s structuralist perspective, for Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) 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 thus com-prises both the network and the assets that may be mobilized through that network” (1998, p. 243). For Adler and Kwon (2002), social capital can be correlated to internal (ties within the or-ganization) and external (ties outside) social relations, that can provide information (e.g. best practices), knowledge or operative resources (e.g. financing) to nodes (Adner & Helfat, 2003). The word « network » is externalised from human resource capital in the research question, because there is an overlap between relational dimension of human capital resources and relational di-mension of organizational capital resource. In fact, Barney (1991, p. 101) include in the last ones « informal relations among groups within a firm and between a firm and those in its environment ». Networks within organizations are a part of human capital; networks among organizations, even if among individual members of different organizations, or among group within an organization, are the relational part of organizational capital resources. Indeed, social capital resources embed-ded in networks structure of individuals and groups within and between organizations. The fo-cus of this thesis is about knowledge networks. Even if in organizations other typologies of con-nections are frequent (friendship, love, trust, distrust, leadership, avoidance and so on) and they are peculiar forms of social capital, this research limited his analysis to knowledge connections. For a meso-organizational point of view, before the microfoundation movement, social capital embedded in internal and external knowledge networks was already considered the most influ-ential factor for the development of dynamic capabilities in general, ambidexterity and innova-tion adoption in particular (Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005). Behavioural public administration can also apply to research questions at participant level of analysis in network studies (Grimme-likhuijsen et al., 2017), thus in the case of intra-organizational networks and inter-organizational ones with multiple external stakeholders. The crucial hypothesis is that dynamic capabilities come from an active combination and re-combination of people, knowledge and other resources (Kogut & Zander, 1992). In this sense, social connection between people can produce novel com-binations, thanks to the access to other’s ideas and resources (Obstfeld, 2005). Remaining in the classical definition of human capital and in connection with social capital, in modern economies, a key resource is knowledge (Grant, 1996; Nonaka, 1991), also in public administration, because « government is composed of numerous groups of knowledge organizations » (Raadschelders, 2011, p. 920). Knowledge resides within individuals (Grant, 1996; Nonaka, 1991), so that individ-ual employees are « owner » of the fundamental resource for the organization (Grant, 1996). Focus-ing on this kind of social capital means to elaborate the theoretical basis of organizational knowledge and knowledge management, for which definitions are given both in the construction of a specific qualitative theoretical model for the public sector in terms of microfoundation and as conceptual bases for a series of hypotheses to be tested empirically. Based on these premises, it is clear how important the individual role is in the development and maintenance of social capital and how social capital can in turn be decisive for the outcome of individual and collective performances. In the first perspective, starting from cognitive capabilities, social cognition is closely connected with social capital dimensions. In particular, Tasselli and Kilduff (2017) found that the combination of two personality traits, high self-monitoring (i.e., flexibility of self-presen-tation to different groups (Snyder, 1974)) and low blirtatiousness (i.e., disinhibition of verbal ex-pressiveness, the speed of self-revelation thoughts, feelings and attitudes to other people (Swann Jr. & Rentfrow, 2001)), underpin brokers’ capabilities to manage interactions between disjointed groups in organizations diplomatically. This is the case of management impression and, in fact, self-monitoring is crucial to predict leading roles that have structural advantage in social net-works (Fang et al., 2015). In fact, social cognition “prepares us for social interaction and instructs us as to what is appropriate behavior” (Moskowitz, 2005, p. 514) and, thus, though a better un-derstand of social environments, it is an antecedent and a reinforcement of social capital and it is theoretically connected with social experience included in human capital. In fact, it is precisely definitely social cognitive capabilities that contribute to strengthening collaboration, but, moreo-ver, they influence the behavior of others in the direction of change or, at least, to reduce their resistance to dynamic renew of resources and assets within and across organizations (Helfat & Peteraf, 2015), in which networks individuals play a key role. Two relevant constructs of cogni-tive capabilities are considered in this work for their relevance in organization and management research: mindfulness, connected with the attentional dimension (Dane, 2011; Good et al., 2016), and political skills, connected to the social cognitive dimension of cognitive capabilities (Ferris et al., 2005, 2007) and politics at work (Mintzberg, 1983, 1985). The thesis focus on these two ex-ample of cognitive capabilities, othervise cognitive capabilities and, in particular, social cognition also include costructs as self-monitoring and perceived accountability. Another social cognitive dimension that can be considered is the personality trait of Machiavellianism and future research could focus on it in the relationships between public servants and politicians in local govern-ments. From cognitive capabilities, it is distinguished the emotional intelligence that is a cognitive ability linked to the regulation of emotions. It is also necessary to stress the fact that at the psy-chological level there are two different mental processes, as seen automatic and controlled, that influence and are involved in all individual cognitive abilities (Helfat & Martin, 2015).
“Impact” – The philosophy of scientific research and the scientific choice toward a positivist perspective.
In order to explain the demand for research, i.e. « do cognitive capabilities and social capital im-pact on dynamic capabilities in local governments? », it is essential to dwell on the theoretical and philosophical bases of scientific research, since they can give a different meaning to « do » and « impact ». Therefore, based on the meaning to give to impact are the perspectives of philosophy of research in this thesis. In order to make a creative contribution to a given field of social science research, every researcher should have understanding and clarity about the philosophical debate and choices that guide the design of research and the methods used (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). A reflection on ontology and epistemology means to give more meaning to research also in public administrations, rather than dwelling only on research methods (Raadschelders, 2011). Actually, in recent years, theoretical reasoning has dwelt only on the method to go back incorrectly to epis-temology, while for Raadschelders (2011), it would be appropriate to start from the ontological perspective that dialogues with epistemology to cascade on methodology (Figure 3).
Exploitation, exploration and ambidextrous “appropriate balance”.
A specific focus of this thesis is about ambidexterity. The study of strategic concepts has ex-panded in the field of public administration (Modell, 2012), but ambidexterity is still a rarely examined topic (Umans et al., 2018) while being perceived as behavior that optimizes perfor-mance also in the public sector (Gieske, George, et al., 2020). In public organizations it is crucial to be able to manage both the optimization and innovation of policies, processes and services (Gieske, Duijn, et al., 2020). The first to use the term organizational ambidexterity was Duncan (1976), although more specific research in the field of organization started with the March’s paper (1991), which first identified the balance between exploitation and exploration as the roots for adaptation and development of an organization. During last years, the interest passed from the general concept of dynamic capabilities to « second-order » dimensions, as learning (Zollo & Win-ter, 2002) and exploitation-exploration (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991). Those dynamic capabilities based on the use of existing knowledge and the research of new knowledge « can orig-inate from the outside the organization … or from inside the organization through various mech-anisms of intra-organizational knowledge sharing » (Easterby-Smith & Prieto, 2008, p. 239). In March’s original idea exploitation has a short-run perspective, otherwise exploration has a long-run one and they compete for scarce resources (1991):
« Exploration includes things captured by terms such as search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, innovation … Exploitation includes such thinks as refinement, choice, produc-tion, efficiency, selection, implementation, execution. » (March, 1991, p. ).
At organizational level, exploitation and exploration are based on different structures, strategies and contexts (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). In this research, unlike the original Easterby-Smith and Prieto’s model (2008) that sees the learning process connected to exploitation and exploration as mediator between knowledge management and dynamic capabilities, here the exploitation-ex-ploration-ambidextrous process as preeminent dimension. It may be considered not only as a « second-order » dynamic capabilities (Zollo & Winter, 2002), but also a real dynamic capability (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008) and an objective of knowledge management is to enhance it (Swan et al., 1999) in a microfoundation fashion. Exploitation is connected with a better replication of existing methods and efficiency, while exploration is connected with new ideas and leads to innovation (Easterby-Smith & Prieto, 2008). Similar consideration can be done also for public ad-ministration even if the studies on this issue are extremely rare to date. Organizational ambidexterity is a relevant factor as an outcome of public organizations, considering that their perfor-mance often concerns a “good” allocation of resources and the creation of value for stakeholders rather than financial results (E. Smith & Umans, 2015; Umans et al., 2018). To date, researches about organizational ambidexterity in public administration are limited, even if the development of new paradigms (Umans et al., 2018) and the application of strategic concepts (e.g. J. R. Hansen Ferlie, 2016) recall the attention to delve into the antecedents of this construct. This thesis fo-cuses on the factors influencing organizational behaviour, but there is another field of research about the organizational (e.g. Lubatkin et al., 2006) and individual effect of ambidexterity (e.g. Caniëls & Veld, 2019; Torres et al., 2015). In a qualitative study, Canneart et al. (2016) find the relevance of cognitive capabilities in term as “T-shaped skills”41, as antecedents of team ambidex-terity, but, until now, the deepening has stopped at conceptual hypotheses. About social capital, focusing on contingency perspective, Umans et al. (2018) confirm the positive role of shared lead-ership at level of top management in municipal housing corporations, that are organizations con-trolled by local governments. There is a gap about the roles of knowledge-based social capital and cognitive capabilities in local governments in a behavioural perspective.
Table of contents :
I.FIRST PART: LITERATURE REVIEW.
2.RESEARCH QUESTION: WHY IS THIS INTERESTING?
a) »Behavioral microfoundation of Public Administration » – An emphasis on the study of public sectorfrom the perspective of individual behaviors and attitudes.
b)“Cognitive capabilities” – An Academic debate from the definition of human capital resources topersonal insights.
c)“Social capital” – A focus on the structure of relationships at work and knowledge networks.
d)“Impact” – The philosophy of scientific research and the scientific choice toward a positivistperspective.
e)“Dynamic capabilities” – The introduction of strategic concepts in the field of public administration.
f)“Local governments” – Stimuli to focus scientific attention at the municipal level.
3.PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE: WHERE WE COME FROM ANDWHERE WE ARE?
a)Weberian bureaucracy. The beginnings of the theoretical and practical evolution of publicadministration
b)From Weberian bureaucracy to New Public Management.
c)Individuals’ role in New Public Management – quality management.
d)From New Public Management (NPM) to Network Governance (NG).
e)New public service. Another paradigm of public administration beyond New Public Managementand Network Governance.
f)From bureaucracy to the paradigm of Neo-Weberian State. A modern answer to the problems of publicorganizations or a return to the past?
g)The paradigms development of public administration in scientific research. An in-depth analysisthanks to a bibliometric analysis with Google Scholar.
B.MICROFOUNDATION MODEL: LITERATURE REVIEW OF INDIVIDUAL DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES.
1.INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR
a)The contemporary imperative of innovation in the public sector.
b)Creativity and innovative work behaviour. An open academic debate.
c)Innovative work behaviour – A schematic review of antecedents.
2.AMBIDEXTERITY
a)Exploitation, exploration and ambidextrous “appropriate balance”.
b)Exploitation – exploration: complementary or alternative? Ambidexterity.
c) Ambidexterity at individual level.
d) Microfoundation of individual ambidexterity. A schematic review.
C. SOCIAL CAPITAL FROM KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS AS ANTECEDENTS OF INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES.
a) Preliminary aspects: Knowledge Management and Dynamic Capabilities.
1. KNOWLEDGE AS A KEY RESOURCE TO MANAGE: A THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION.
a) Reasons for a model of Knowledge Management in Public Administration.
b) Organizational knowledge – Theoretical framework and assumptions
c) Conceptual model of KM in public sector: a back to basics approach.
d) Discussion: towards a conceptual model of Knowledge Management in practice.
2. KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS (REVIEW AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES ON MICROFOUNDATION): THE ROLE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL AS ANTECEDENT OF DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES.
a) Knowledge networks within organizations: a definition.
b) Knowledge networks: a social capital (structural) perspective.
c) Factors influencing knowledge sharing within an organization.
d) Theoretical connections between social capital embedded in knowledge networks and dynamic capabilities.
3. EXTERNAL NETWORKING (REVIEW AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES ON MICROFOUNDATION): THE ROLE AS ANTECEDENT OF DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES.
a) External networking: social capital from outside the public organization.
b) External networking: contingency or behavioural microfoundation?
c) Motivations for external networking in Network Governance.
d) Networking classification in literature of public administration
e) External networking – review of empirical researches for local governments.
f) Relations between politics, management and bureaucracy in local governments: theoretical framework and an in-depth research hypothesis.
D. COGNITIVE CAPABILITIES: MINDFULNESS AND POLITICAL SKILL.
1. MINDFULNESS (REVIEW AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES)
a) Mindfulness: a theoretical foundation.
b) The direct relationship between mindfulness and dynamic capabilities.
c) The direct relationships between mindfulness and social capital and indirect effects on dynamic capabilities.
2. POLITICAL SKILL (REVIEW AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES).
a) Political skill: a theoretical foundation.
b) Social cognitive capabilities: political skill and comparaison with other social effectiveness costructs.
c) Political skill, performance and other social costructs in public administration.
d) The direct relationship between political skill and dynamic capabilities
e) The direct relationship between Political skill and Social capital and the mediating role of the latter.
f) The moderation effect of political skill between social capital and dynamic capabilities.
g) The direct relationship between mindfulness and social cognitive capabilities, in particular political skill.
h) Full sequential multiple mediation model: mindfulness, political skill, social capital, dynamic capabilities.
II. SECOND PART: EMPIRICAL RESEARCHES.
A. SOCIAL CAPITAL AND INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR: AN EXPLORATIVE PRELIMINARY CASE STUDY THROUGH A PERSONAL COGNITIVE SOCIAL STRUCTURE.
a) Introduction to an ego-network case study in an Italian local government.
b) Graphical analysis of egonetwork and of complete knowledge network (as perceived by a public middle manager “Ego”)
c) Social capital impact positively on innovative work behaviour in a local government? In-depths hypotheses and statistical inferences.
d) Discussion of results for the explorative analysis in a municipal case study: Social capital and Innovative work behaviour.
B. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS.
1. ORGANIZATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A QUESTIONNAIRE
a) Introduction to survey design. and construction of the questionnaire.
b) Survey definitions: web-based written self-administrated questionnaire.
c) Closed-ended question format and survey wording.
d) Research design for social network analysis.
e) Question order in the survey: methodological theory and practical choices.
2. COMMON METHOD VARIANCE AND LIMITS PROCEDURES.
a) Introduction to common method variance.
b) Outcome variables: assessed by the same person or an observer?
c) A separation between independent and dependent variables: Time-lag.
d) Psychological separation.
e) Methodological separation.
f) Proximal separation
3. INCREASE THE RESPONSE RATE AND SAMPLING.
a) Increase response rate: literature suggestions and strategies applicated.
b) Sampling and data: theory and practice in this thesis.
C. RESEARCH DESIGN: MEASUREMENTS
a) Mindfulness: MAAS
b) Political skill Inventory.
c) Social capital: external networking.
d)Social capital: internal knowledge network. Strong and weak ties.
e)Individual ambidexterity
f)Innovative work behaviour.
g)Organizational dynamic capabilities
h)Organizational ambidexterity in the public sector.
i)Organizational innovation in the public sector
j)Control variables at individual level: human capital and demography.
D.STATISTICAL RESULTS
a)Introduction to statistical analyses and results.
1.EXPLORATORYFACTOR ANALYSES, CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSES, RELIABILITY, VALIDITY.
a)Introduction to factor analyses.
b)Mindfulness.
c)Political skill.
d)External networking.
e)Individual ambidexterity
f)Innovative Work Behaviour.
g)Descriptive statistics and correlations.
2.MICROFOUNDATION OF AMBIDEXTERITY: OLS, MAIN AND INTERACTION EFFECTS.
3.MICROFOUNDATION OF DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES: HIERARCHICAL LINEARMODELLING
4.SOCIAL CAPITAL AND POLITICAL SKILL : MICROFOUNDATION
5.STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELLING AND MEDIATION.
6.COMMON METHOD BIASES: A METHODOLOGICAL ISSUE?
a)Response time to the questionnaire.
b)Independent and dependent variable with different respondent. A discussion.
E.DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
1.DISCUSSION ABOUT EMPIRICAL RESULTS.
a)Minfulness.
b)Political skill
c)External networking.
d)Internal social capital – strong and weak ties.
e)Moderation effects.
f)Mediation effects.
2.MICROUNDATION:A MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
3.MANAGERIAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS.
4.METHODOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS.
F.FUTURE RESEARCHES, LIMITS AND CONCLUSIONS.
a)Future researches on multilevel hypotheses.
b)Future researches on Machiavellianism and Politics-Administration Shared Leadership. … 455
c)Future researches on other individual dynamic capabilities that are not considered: thriving at workand improvisation capability.
2.LIMITS AND METHODOLOGICAL ATTENTION.
3.CONCLUSIONS.
III.APPENDIX.
1.MOST INFLUENTIAL ARTICLES FOR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PARADIGMS 477
2.DATABASE FOR THE EXPLORATIVE ANALYSIS: KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS ANDINNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR (IN A MUNICIPALITY; DATA FROM A PUBLIC SERVANT) AND ESTIMATIONS.
3.STEPS FOR EXTERNAL NETWORKING SCALE.
4.OLS REGRESSIONS ABOUT PERCEIVED INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR. COMPLETEDETAILS OF BASELINE MODELS.
5.OLS REGRESSIONS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL AMBIDEXTERITY (MULTIPLICATIVE).COMPLETE DETAILS OF BASELINE MODELS.
6.OLSREGRESSIONS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL AMBIDEXTERITY (SUMMATIVE-CONTINUUM). COMPLETE DETAILS OF BASELINE MODELS.
7.STRUCTURAL EQUATIONAL MODELLING: GRAPHICAL MODELS FROM THE BUILDEROF STATA.
8.SUMMARY LIST OF HYPOTHESES AND EMPIRICAL ESTIMATES
IV.LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
1.LIST OF FIGURES
2.LIST OF TABLES
V.BIBLIOGRAPHY
