Changes in knowledge coupling and innovation performance: the moderation effect of network cohesion

Purpose Collaborative research and development have remained a pertinent mechanism for conducting technological innovations. With the lens of knowledge-based view (KBV), this study aims to examine the role of changes in knowledge couplings and network cohesion to elevate innovation performance. Design/methodology/approach Data analysis has been performed on 53,459 patents through regression analysis with random effects. These independent and joint patents are extracted from Derwent Innovation Database. Findings Findings explicate that change in external existing or existing and new knowledge couplings have inverted U-shaped effects on a firm’s innovation performance. Changes in internal existing or existing and new knowledge couplings have direct positive effects on firm’s innovation performance. The moderation effect of network cohesion flattens the inverted U-shaped effect of external new and existing knowledge coupling, whereas it has no significant effect on external existing knowledge coupling. Network cohesion further elevates the effects of internal knowledge couplings – existing or existing and new. Research limitations/implications This study theoretically contributes to KBV and innovation management literature by highlighting the scope of changes in internal and external knowledge couplings and subsequent output. Network cohesion flattens the curviness of changes in external new and existing knowledge couplings, which is a contribution to strategic management literature. Practical implications Organizations need to carefully manage changes in knowledge couplings and ensure their benefits (obtain new knowledge domain or new combination) outweigh liabilities (damages to organizational routines or increase in collaboration costs). Managers must consider four kinds of knowledge coupling changes along with developing network cohesion as an R&D strategy. Originality/value This study is one of its types to flatten the curve through network cohesion. This study divided the changes in knowledge coupling into four types and two dimensions; external existing and new and existing knowledge couplings and internal existing and new and existing knowledge couplings.

From Integrated to Fragmented Elites. The Core of Swiss Elite Networks 1910-2015

This article focuses on historical elite dynamics and investigates elites’ integration over time. We describe the changing relations and composition of the central circles in Swiss elite networks at seven benchmark years between 1910 and 2015 by relying on 22,262 elite individuals tied to 2587 organisations among eight key sectors, and identify for each year the most connected core of individuals. We explore network cohesion and sectoral bridging of the elite core and find that it moved from being a unitary corporate elite following family-based elite reproduction, before 1945, to an integrated corporatist elite involved in educational and professional-based reproduction, between the 1950s and 1980s, before fragmenting into a loose group in the 1990s onwards. The core was always dominated by business and their forms of legitimacy but, at times of crisis to the hegemony of corporate elites, elite circles expanded and included individuals with delegated forms of power, such as politicians and unionists, detaining more university credentials, and less transnational connections and elite family ties.

Autocracies and the Control of Societal Organizations

Authoritarian regimes seek to prevent formal and informal organizations in society from engaging in mobilized dissent. What strategies do they use to do so, and what explains their choices? I posit that state actors in autocracies use four mechanisms to control societal organizations: repression, coercion, cooptation and containment. How they control these organizations depends on whether they think they might undermine political stability. Two factors inform that assessment. First is whether state actors think societal organizations’ interests are reconcilable with regime resilience. Second is whether groups are in national or international networks that are either cohesive or incohesive. While the irreconcilability of interests influences state actors’ perceptions of groups as subversive, network cohesion shapes organizations’ capacity for large-scale mobilization.