Advertisement

Empirical Analysis of the Effect of Knowledge Network Structure on Individual Creativity through Exploitation and Exploration

  • Min Hee Hahn
  • Kun Chang Lee
  • Dae Sung Lee
Conference paper
  • 742 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 195)

Abstract

This study proposes a type of individual creativity model that is comprised of knowledge network structure and creative process. Knowledge network structure represents degree centrality and structural holes that are driven by interactions among members in organization. In this model, we assume that individuals would yield different performances by complicated network structures. On the other hand, creative process includes exploration and exploitation. While exploitation is regarded as the existing solution, exploration is the development of new solutions. To validate our proposed model, we contacted the seven largest system integration companies in South Korea. Then, we collected the questionnaires of 73 members and their recently organized 7 teams, and analyzed the data by structural equation model. Our study found that degree centrality and structural holes significantly influence exploitation and exploration. Moreover, our results show that exploitation significantly has an effect on exploration, and both exploitation and exploration influence individual creativity positively.

Keywords

Individual creativity Exploration Exploitation degree centrality structural holes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amabile, T.M.: A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior 10, 123–167 (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amabile, T.M.: Creativity in context. Westview Press, CO (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amabile, T.M.: The social psycology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psycology 45, 357–376 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Audia, P.G., Goncalo, J.A.: Past Success and Creativity over Time: A Study of Inventors in the Hard Disk Drive Industry. Management Science 53, 1–15 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balkundi, P., Harrison, D.A.: Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about the effects of network structure on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal 49, 49–68 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benner, M.J., Tushman, M.L.: Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly 47, 676–706 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burt, R.S.: Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chin, W.W.: The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling. In: Marcoulides, G.A. (ed.) Modern methods for business research, pp. 295–336. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A.: Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 128–152 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coleman, J.: Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94, 95–120 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ford, C.M.: A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review 21, 1112–1142 (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guilford, J.P.: Creativity. American Psychologist 5, 444–454 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., Shalley, C.E.: The Interplay between Exploration and Exploitation. Academy of Management Journal 49, 693–706 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    He, Z.L., Wong, P.K.: Exploration vs Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science 15, 81–94 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katila, R., Ahuja, G.: Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal 45, 1183–1194 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lazer, D., Friedman, A.: The Network Structure of Exploration and Exploitation. Administrative Science Quarterly 52, 667–694 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levinthal, D.A., March, J.G.: The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal 14, 95–112 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    March, J.G.: Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2, 71–87 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nerkar, A.: Old is good? The value of temporal exploration in the creation of new knowledge. Management science 49, 211–229 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oldham, G.R., Cummings, A.: Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal 39, 607–634 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reagans, R.E., Zuckerman, E.W.: Networks, diversity, and Productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science 12, 502–517 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schilling, M.A., Phelps, C.C.: Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science 53, 1113–1126 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shalley, C.E., Gilson, L., Blum, T.C.: Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal 43, 215–223 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tiwana, A., McLean, E.R.: Expertise integration and creativity in information systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems 22, 13–44 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wold, H.: Soft Modelling: The Basic Design and some Extensions. In: Jöreskog, K.G., Wold, H. (eds.) Systems Under Indirect Observation, Part II. North Holland Press, Amsterdam (1982)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., Griffin, R.W.: Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review 18, 293–321 (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Min Hee Hahn
    • 1
  • Kun Chang Lee
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Dae Sung Lee
    • 5
  1. 1.Business Management UnitLG CNS CO., Ltd.SeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.MISSKK Business SchoolRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Creativity Science at Department of Interaction ScienceWCURepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Sungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  5. 5.SKK Business SchoolSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations