RESULTADO DE APLICACIÓN 105

Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) suggest that the cognitive dimension of social capital encompasses shared representation, interpretation and a system of meaning as well as sharing the same knowledge and expertise (Boschma, 2005) that are all particularly important mechanisms for knowledge creation and integration into the existing core competencies (Grant, 1996b) and absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Nooteboom et al. (2007) explain cognitive distance by drawing on members’ organisational focus that is rooted in organisational cultures (Schein, 1984). Schein (1984) defines culture as “a pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked well enough to be

60

considered valid and, therefore can be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (p.3), which can be classified into assumptions, values and artefacts. More specifically, the cognitive dimension is attributed to values or shared vision (van Wijk et al., 2008). Inkpen and Tsang (2005) suggest that shared goals and a shared culture among the network members are facets of social capital conducive to KT. Accordingly, shared culture is explained as the behaviour of organisational members and thus organisations in network relationships, which is governed by values or assumptions (Gulati et al., 2000; Schein, 1984).

This cultural level was related to absorptive capacity in terms of similarities in organisational politics or compensation practices (Lane et al., 2001). Shared culture or cultural similarities are also referred to congruency in human resource bases between the networking partners with respect to education, economic situation and occupation (Weidenfeld et al., 2010). Smaller economic sectors are said to differ in their human resource base and therefore in their approach to networks favouring personal and informal networks in contrast to larger economic sectors (Morrison, 1998; Sorensen, 2007).

Knowledge sharing is facilitated if members of networks develop a shared interpretation of the knowledge, and this in turn is facilitated through shared language, codes and narrative (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Shared values and systems facilitate a common understanding in intra-organisational (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998) as well as inter-organisational relationships (Lane and Lubatkin, 1998; Mowery et al., 1996). Cognitive proximity between sharing partners increases their ability to combine knowledge (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Nonaka, 1994). Nonetheless, knowledge transfer is the combination of diverse knowledge that requires, on the other

61

hand, a certain similarity of knowledge bases or contexts in order to be understood and absorbed (Lane and Lubatkin, 1998, Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). While cultural distance has beneficial effects on knowledge transfer (Inkpen and Tsang, 2005; Parkhe, 1991) it hampers the transfer if norms and values are not understood (Mowery et al., 1996). Yet, cultural distance between firms is less detrimental to knowledge transfer than it is within them (van Wijk et al., 2008). Nooteboom et al. (2007) suggest that the effect on firm performance is higher in firms that are cognitively distant, interpreted as possessing different technological knowledge, where the risk of misunderstandings because of distinct understandings or emotional behaviour is greater. This in turn may inhibit the development of shared representations and interpretations (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).

A prerequisite for developing and managing a network is an organisational culture that is open to innovation and task oriented (Cooper, 2008; Ladd and Ward, 2002). Although cultural distance and diversity are proposed to be beneficial for KT, such situations are more difficult to manage. A shared network identity or vision among network members facilitates knowledge-sharing activities and knowledge mobility that in turn foster value creation (Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006; Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000). A common culture of network management that derives from an understanding of appropriate network behaviour among the involved members may indeed require some compromises on the part of individual members if the joint goals are to be pursued (Inkpen and Tsang, 2005). In particular, because each autonomous firm follows its own specified vision and objectives, which may not always be congruent with all other network members’ visions and goals, these visions and goals need to be negotiated until a common network focus emerges with clearly stated goals (Inkpen and Tsang, 2005).

62

Moreover, shared industry and managerial practices evolve among firms operating in the same industry or pursuing the same tasks (Inkpen and Tsang, 2005) or related national cultures (Parkhe, 1991). According to the literature, partner similarity or product similarity facilitates inter-organisational knowledge sharing because of the cognitive proximity of the involved partners (Borgatti and Foster, 2003). Weidenfeld et al. (2010) provide empirical evidence of cognitive proximity by investigating KT among attraction clusters, and conclude that spatial clustering, and product and market similarity facilitate KT. Parkhe (1991) differentiates societal culture as consisting of different perceptions and interpretations of phenomena, and corporate culture to refer to differing ideologies and values of firms in an inter-firm context. Cultural distance at the organisational level can be overcome by organisational learning, while differences in societal culture require formal training, informal contact and transparency of behaviour.

That similar language facilitates information access and exchange became a prevalent idea in the research on KT in tourism. The lack of this resource, such as between the two distinct communities of in tourism—academic and practitioners—seems to inhibit the KT across the communities. Tourism firms are said to search for knowledge that is relevant to their business (Cooper, 2006), thus in close proximity to their knowledge base (Boschma, 2005) that is argued to facilitate knowledge transfer and absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) but limits learning (Nooteboom, 2000).