The Strength of Weak Ties
You Can Trust:
The Mediating Role of Trust
in Effective Knowledge Transfer
Daniel Z. Levin
Rob Cross
Management Science (2004)
2002 Lawrence Erlbaum Best Paper Award
Weak Ties: A Story
Cross gives an Academy talk on
the types of advice people get, with
a unique data-collection approach
Levin—in audience—has been
struggling to find a way to test an
idea about knowledge transfer
and trust from his own recent
interviews with managers.
Weak Ties + Trust
Levin e-mails Cross with
proposal: “Let’s use your
approach to test my trust
idea.”
They exchange papers and offer
comments, quickly building trust
They begin a “virtual”
collaboration
What Can We Learn
from This Story?
• Useful knowledge can come from strangers
(i.e., really weak ties)
• You don’t need a strong tie to trust that
someone will be benevolent and competent
• Researchers need to separate out tie strength
(structural) from trust (relational).
Knowledge in Organizations
• Knowledge creation and transfer are critical
for organizations (Cohen & Levinthal 1990; Kogut &
Zander 1992, 1996; Spender 1996; Argote 1999)
• Knowledge is difficult to transfer, even
within organizations (Zander & Kogut 1995;
Szulanski 2000)
• Knowledge transfer, when it occurs, is often
based on interpersonal relationships (Pelz &
Andrews 1968; Mintzberg 1973; Allen 1977; Cross 2001)
Research Question:
From Whom Do People Report
Getting Useful Knowledge on
Important Projects at Work?
3 Aspects of Knowledge Transfer
Structural
weak vs.
strong ties
Granovetter,
Mayer et al.,
1973
Tsai & 1995
Zaheer et al.,
Krackhardt,
Ghoshal,
1998
1992
1998
Ghoshal et al.,
1994
Hansen,
1999
Knowledge
tacit vs. explicit
Current
Study
Zand, 1972
Szulanski,
1996
Nonaka, 1994
Polanyi, 1966
Zander & Kogut, 1995
Relational
trust
Survey Methods
• Two-stage, critical-incident, egocentric
network survey
• 127 respondents reported on 4 relationships
(n=508), response rate=48%
• Same results in three companies: U.S. drug
co., Canadian oil & gas co., U.K. bank
• Controls: formal structure; demographic
similarity; receiver’s own expertise
• Hierarchical linear modeling for nested data
Factor Analysis
Survey Item
Benevolence
Tie
Trust
Strength
Competence
Trust
Look out for me
Avoid damaging me
Care about me
.91
.87
.64
.08
-.05
-.17
.00
-.03
.16
Closeness
Communication
Interaction
.05
.01
-.03
-.87
-.85
-.84
.05
-.04
.01
Professional/dedicated
Competent/prepared
-.05
.07
-.02
.03
.88
.75
Ruling Out
Alternative Explanations
X Nonwork-related Friendship
X Availability of Knowledge Source
X Formal Structure (function, level, project, proximity)
X Demographic Similarity (age, gender)
X Factors beyond Source’s Control
(1) Strong Ties Are Useful…
Tie
Strength
+
Receipt of
Useful
Knowledge
(1) Strong Ties Are Useful…
…Because They Are Trusted
+
Tie
Strength
+
Competence
Trust
+
Benevolence
Trust
+
Receipt of
Useful
Knowledge
(2) Controlling for Trust, Weak
Ties Are Actually More Useful
+
Tie
Strength
–
+
Competence
Trust
+
Benevolence
Trust
+
Receipt of
Useful
Knowledge
(3) Interaction Effect for Tacitness
Competence Is Critical
For Tacit Knowledge
+
Tie
Strength
–
+
Competence
Trust
+
Benevolence
Trust
+
+
Receipt of
Useful
Knowledge
D.V.=Perceived Receipt of Useful Knowledge
Variable
Intercept, controls
Eq.1 Eq.2 Eq.3 Eq.4 Eq.5
[controls not reported here •••]
Tacit Knowledge
-.23•••-.22•••-.16•••-.16•••-.16•••
.21•••
Tie Strength
-.08•• -.08•••
Benevolence Trust
.20••• .22••• .22•••
Competence Trust
.23••• .23••• .22•••
.05•
Competence*Tacit
R2 = .56
.57
.69
.70
.71
Contribution…
• …to org. learning and knowledge lit.:
Support for structural-relational-knowledge
(SRK) perspective of knowledge transfer
• …to social network lit.:
Weak ties + trust are not only possible but
maybe even desirable