Social capital and firm operational performance: The mediating roles of knowledge sharing$h

Minh Tri Ha Article Social capital and firm operational performance: The mediating roles of knowledge sharing$h Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Minh Tri Ha (2021) : Social capital and firm operational performance: The mediating roles of knowledge sharing$h, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 8, Iss. 1, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1973237 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/245127 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & Management ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oabm20 Social capital and firm operational performance: The mediating roles of knowledge sharing Minh-Tri Ha | To cite this article: Minh-Tri Ha | (2021) Social capital and firm operational performance: The mediating roles of knowledge sharing, Cogent Business & Management, 8:1, 1973237, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2021.1973237 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1973237 © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 09 Sep 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 453 View related articles View Crossmark data MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE Social capital and firm operational performance: The mediating roles of knowledge sharing Minh-Tri Ha 1 * Abstract: Personal or private relationships between leaders of construction firms and government officials are critical to a firm’s market success because they provide access to valuable information that their competitors do not. This study was carried out to investigate the associations between social capital dimensions, the sharing of knowledge and firm operational performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the construction sector. Our study utilised a questionnairebased survey design to gather online data using a convenience sampling method. To test the hypotheses, data obtained from 346 SMEs were analysed using structural equation modelling. Overall, other than the connection between structural social capital and explicit knowledge sharing, all social capital dimensions had a positive impact on both explicit and tacit knowledge sharing. Furthermore, explicit and tacit knowledge sharing positively influenced firm operational performance. Surprisingly, only cognitive social capital dimension was found to affect operational performance directly. Our study offers several practical implications regarding how firms can enhance improved operational performance in relation to advocating social capital dimensions and the sharing of knowledge. Subjects: Business, Management and Accounting; Leadership; Corporate Governance; Human Resource Management ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dr. Minh-Tri Ha is currently a lecturer at the International University, Vietnam National University – Ho Chi Minh City. His teaching focuses on marketing research, business strategy and business ethics. His research interests are social capital, intellectual capital, corporate social responsibilities, knowledge sharing, innovation, greenwashing, and firm performance. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Personal or private relationships between leaders of construction firms and government officials are critical to a firm’s market success because they provide access to valuable information that their competitors do not. This study investigates the relationships between different social capital dimensions, knowledge sharing and firm operational performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the construction industry in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Overall, other than the connection between structural social capital and explicit knowledge sharing, relational and cognitive social capital dimensions had a positive impact on both explicit and tacit knowledge sharing which then influence operational performance. Our study offers several practical implications regarding how firms can enhance improved operational performance in relation to advocating social capital dimensions and the sharing of knowledge. Ha, Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1973237 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1973237 Page 1 of 17 Received: 16 January 2021 Accepted: 22 August 2021 *Corresponding author: Minh-Tri Ha, School of Business, International University, Vietnam National University – Ho Chi Minh City, Quarter 6, Linh Trung Ward, Thu Duc City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Richard Wickramaratne, Department of Human Resource Management, University of Peradeniya, Kandy, Sri Lanka Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Keywords: construction; knowledge sharing; operational performance; SMEs; social capital; Vietnam 1. Introduction Social capital (SC) has been regarded as a lubricant that aids the completion of tasks. It enables people to collaborate and reap the benefits of social ties (Ha & Nguyen, 2020; H. Nguyen & Ha, 2020). Modern economies rely on social capital to function effectively (P. K. Nguyen & Ha, 2020). Without social capital, our society, economy, institutions, and political system would not exist. SC has been widely examined in sociology over the past two decades, and more recently in businesses such as management (Hollenbeck & Jamieson, 2015; Liu & Lee, 2015), organisation (Acquaah, 2007; Tamer et al., 2014), and family businesses (Herrero, 2018; E. P. C. Chang et al., 2009; Sandefur et al., 2006). An increased interest in social capital studies has stimulated economists to explore economic studies further. Mainstream economists have largely examined the role of tie strength, social ties and culture in production, as well as human and intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Rupasingha et al., 2015; Tamer et al., 2014). For firms needing to maintain efficiency and performance, it is inevitable that a competitive advantage will be identified (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Intangible assets, including SC and knowledge, have been used to identify a competitive advantage. While knowledge is an important source of SC (Adler & SeokWoo, 2002; Burt, 1997; Coleman, 1988; Uzzi, 1997), it is also a crucial driver for the performance of firms (Gulati, 1998; Ha & Nguyen, 2020; Sandefur & Laumann, 1998). In a similar vein, SMEs benefit from knowledge, and even more so than traditional resources (Desouza & Awazu, 2006; Ha & Nguyen, 2020; H. Nguyen & T., 2020). They can effectively build social capital to execute some important functions such as creating intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) and exchanging resources. They can also boost innovation (H. Nguyen & T. Ha & Nguyen, 2020; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998), information, influence and control, as well as creating social solidarity (Sandefur & Laumann, 1998) and solving coordination problems (Light & Dana, 2013). Social capital allows SMEs to accelerate their performance by exploiting the knowledge and expertise that is embedded in employees, clients, suppliers, partners, and alliances (Daud & Yusoff, 2010). In Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), construction firms’ behavior, including real estate enterprises is primarily influenced by private connections between company leaders and government officials regarding land availability. As a result, such companies’ perceptions of the role of relationships are skewed. As a result, they have not taken full advantage of their relationships to support their commercial operations (H. Nguyen & T. Ha & Nguyen, 2020; H. T. Nguyen & Huynh, 2012). Despite the importance of social capital and knowledge sharing in boosting firm performance, research in construction sector remains unexplored, especially in Vietnam. An insightful understanding of relationships within SC and knowledge sharing (KS), and firm operational performance (FOP) is important for both a healthy business environment and also for a broader scale of socio-economic development in Vietnam. Despite the wealth of literature available in the field other than construction sector, further research is needed to investigate the influence of SC on KS and FOP, especially in the construction sector. To bridge this gap, this research sets out to examine the associations between SC, KS, and FOP of SMEs in construction sector in HCMC. The findings are expected to provide practical insights and implications for SME construction managers. Following this introduction, section two reviews the literature and develops research hypotheses. Section three describes the methodology of the data collection and construct measurement. Section four presents the research results, while discussion, implications and limitations as well as future research are delivered in the last part. Ha, Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1973237 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1973237 Page 2 of 17 2. Literature review and hypotheses development 2.1. Knowledge Sharing (KS) and Firm Operational Performance (FOP) Knowledge is considered to be a primary asset or resource that drives a firm’s growth and thus performance (Yli-Renko et al., 2002). Recent years have seen the significant role of knowledge as a root of competitive advantages and social capital, and also knowledge sharing in optimising strategy development and firm performance (Grant, 1996; Ha & Nguyen, 2020; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; H. Nguyen & T. Ha & Nguyen, 2020; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). KS between individuals facilitates the development of organisational efficiency for those whose structure involves a wide range of different teams and groups (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). According to Kogut and Zander (1992), KS is among the critical behaviours which strengthen organisational performance. A review of major studies in this area confirmed that there is ample evidence contributing to the favourable association between KS and FOP, both directly and indirectly (Ha & Nguyen, 2020; Law & Ngai, 2008; P. K. Nguyen & T. M. Ha & Nguyen, 2020; Rao et al., 2015; Singh & Power, 2014; Son et al., 2020; Wang & Wang, 2012; Wang et al., 2014). Explicit knowledge sharing (EKS) is found to have a positive association with FOP. More specifically, Ha and Nguyen (2020) discovered that EKS has a significant impact on firm operating performance. Additionally, EKS was found to convey novel information, and systematises knowledge in the organisation resulting in an improvement in organisational effectiveness and efficiency (Van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004). Furthermore, Mohsen Allameh et al. (2014) found that EKS is positively correlated with firm performance, including process performance, customer results and critical performance. Tacit knowledge sharing (TKS) takes place in formal forms, including a training session or a conference, although it occurs mostly across informal channels, such as social networking and interaction among employees (Holste & Fields, 2010; Marquardt, 1996). The concept of tacit knowledge has been studied extensively in knowledge-oriented management research (Phelps et al., 2012). Von Krogh (1998) contends that, while the process in which employees are able to exchange experiences, and practices can increase knowledge creation, TKS can also result in higher organisational value. A large body of evidence confirms that TKS significantly improves organisational performance (Dhanaraj et al., 2004; Mohsen Allameh et al., 2014; Reychav & Weisberg, 2010; Wang & Wang, 2012; Wang et al., 2014). Tacit knowledge significantly improves the efficiency of the decision-making process, productivity, customer serving, the precision of task performance and the smoothness, and the quality of work (Brockmann & Anthony, 1998; HaldinHerrgard, 2000). Additionally, a large body of prior research looked at how knowledge sharing can act as a mediating factor in the relationship between social capital and firm performance (Dhanaraj et al., 2004; Ha & Nguyen, 2020; H. Nguyen & T., 2020; P. K. Nguyen & T. M., 2020; Park et al., 2015). In addition to the positive relationships between EKS and FOP, and TKS and FOP as discussed above, EKS is also found to be positively related to TKS (Zaqout & Abbas, 2012). In other words, individual who shares his or her explicit knowledge also shares implicit knowledge, and tacit knowledge may be shared in organisations where explicit knowledge is shared. Therefore, we hypothesise the following: H1: EKS positively affects FOP. H2: TKS positively affects FOP. H3: EKS positively affects TKS Ha, Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1973237 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1973237 Page 3 of 17 2.2. SC and KS In knowledge management research, SC concerns close relationships among members of the organisation to adapt their values and behaviours through social interaction (Allameh Sayyed, 2018; Terry Kim et al., 2013; Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). Previous studies identified the importance of social trust, social relations and increased attention of SC dimensions (Hau et al., 2013). Several studies, including Akhavan and Mahdi Hosseini (2016) and Van den Hooff and Huysman (2009), found that SC assists in properly elucidating knowledge of others by providing related knowledge, and promoting mutual trust and respect. This can be acknowledged as a superior organisational resource, since it encourages individual interactions, required for collaborative or joint actions (Carrie et al., 1999). Extensive research has examined the connection between SC and KS (Aslam et al., 2013; C.-W. Chang et al., 2012; García-Sánchez et al., 2019; Lefebvre et al., 2016; Wah et al., 2007). It has been suggested that SC is the essential means of achieving knowledge transfer (Chow & Chan, 2008; Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). Other research has already investigated the correlation between specific SC dimensions and KS (Chow & Chan, 2008; Holste & Fields, 2010; Yang & Farn, 2009). In addition, as found by Chang and Chuang (2011), all three facets or dimensions of SC promote KS quantity and quality considerably in the organisational setting. These three SC dimensions were considered as influential factors of knowledge sharing through the collection and donation of knowledge (Terry Kim et al., 2013). 2.3. Structural Social Capital (SSC) The phrase “strength of weak tie” is considered to be the foundation for the relation of the SSC and KS (Granovetter, 1992). Borgatti and Cross (2003) contended that the attributes of social networking are strongly interrelated with the development and sharing of knowledge in an organisation. A high level of networking, in which interaction occurs closely and frequently, results in the increase of TKS (Sorenson et al., 2006). Zaqout and Abbas (2012) concluded that SC positively affects relationships with both types of knowledge. Moreover, social interaction, which is one element of the network, also receives much consideration in the knowledge sharing aspect. Social interaction is typically important in TKS as it provides highly interactive communication, sharing guidance and experiences (Vera-Mun˜oz et al., 2006). Additionally, SSC offers frequent direct contact, which creates the time and possibilities to exchange explicit knowledge (Adler & Seok-Woo, 2002). Taking the aforementioned arguments all together, we formulated the following hypotheses: H4a: SSC positively affects EKS. H4b: SSC positively affects TKS. 2.4. Relational Social Capital (RSC) RSC indicates asset embedded relationships among network members (Bolino et al., 2002; C.-W. Chang et al., 2012; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). These relationships includes the various elements such as liking, trust and cooperation (Bolino et al., 2002). More specifically, trust is considered the essential element of RSC. Trust can cut down perceived uncertainty, promote risk-taking actions and encourage constructive guidance, which will later improve employees’ willingness in TKS (L. Hu & Randel, 2014). When people have trust in each other, they both share more knowledge (Szulanski et al., 2004), and they also share the knowledge that is peculiar or private or can be described as TK (Uzzi & Lancaster, 2003). The RSC represented by the trust was proved to affect KS positively (Aslam et al., 2013; Chiu et al., 2006), and EKS and TKS specifically (C.-W. Chang et al., 2012; Dhanaraj et al., 2004; Zaqout & Abbas, 2012). Other aspects of RSC also show its relationships with KS in terms of identification (Aslam et al., 2013; Chang & Chuang, 2011; Chiu et al., 2006) and reciprocity (Aslam et al., 2013; Chang & Chuang, 2011; Chiu et al., 2006; Ha, Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1973237 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1973237 Page 4 of 17 Tamjidyamcholo et al., 2013). Based on previous literature, the following hypotheses are established: H5a: RSC positively affects EKS. H5b: RSC positively affects TKS. 2.5. Cognitive Social Capital (CSC) CSC indicates the level at which network members share a common perspective and understanding (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). CSC contributes substantially to KS, particularly complex knowledge (Wasko & Faraj, 2005). Terry Kim et al. (2013) indicated that CSC has the greatest impact on knowledge collecting, which is a part of the knowledge sharing process. CSC supports both communication and corporation among team members, and it also helps to develop better expression and understanding of shared knowledge, especially tacit knowledge (L. Hu & Randel, 2014). Chang and Chuang (2011) contended that shared language, a key facet of CSC, has been proved to be significant to the quality and quantity of KS. Shared language can influence in different ways for the conditions necessary for the intellectual assets, capital exchange and integration (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Shared vision and goals use each function as a connector which enables members within the business network to share and generate knowledge (Inkpen & Tsang, 2005). It is suggested that members in an organisation who share the same vision will probably become partners, which results in the sharing and exchange of resources (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). From the previous literature review, the following hypotheses are established: H6a: CSC positively affects EKS. H6b: CSC positively affects TKS. 2.6. Social capital and firm operational performance SC is helpful in terms of increasing the availability of resources, which directly and indirectly affect firm performance (Wang & Wang, 2012), and productivity in particular (Greve et al., 2010). Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) highlighted that all three dimensions or facets of SC collaborate to facilitate the transmission and processing of knowledge among organisation members and thus improve organisational performance. Some studies showed that SC dimensions encourage the knowledge-sharing process which indirectly benefits firm performance (Cheng et al., 2008; Maurer et al., 2011; Terry Kim et al., 2013; Zhu & Wang, 2009). Some authors revealed that SC dimensions, which are represented by its key facets, bring about the improvement of quality, costs, and performance of a firm (Carey et al., 2011; Krause et al., 2007; Villena et al., 2011). 2.7. Structural Social Capital (SSC) SSC involves the “configurations of linkages between people and units” (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998, p. 244), or it can be described as social interaction or social connection. Miller (2006) contended that constant mutual interaction among agents may benefit organisational performance by increasing cooperation levels. Additionally, structural capital is sometimes used as an alternative for organisational capital that the firm applies to reach better outcomes (Bontis, 1998; Martínez-Torres, 2006; Youndt et al., 2004). By generating structural capital, firms improve their working procedures and processes to promote communication and technical sharing, boost efficiency of production and service, and optimise problem resolutions to improve quality and minimise costs (Ordóñez De Pablos, 2004; Zangoueinezhad & Moshabaki, 2009). As a result, firms integrating SSC will dynamically enhance the method of collecting, generating and transferring knowledge, as well as being able to accomplish better quality, Ha, Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1973237 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1973237 Page 5 of 17 lower the cost and have a deeper insight, which altogether results in better operational performance in the organisation (Aramburu & Sáenz, 2015; Zangoueinezhad & Moshabaki, 2009). On the basis of the mentioned arguments, it is expected that: H7a: SSC positively affects FOP. 2.8. Relational Social Capital (RSC) Strong relational ties are positively associated with externalities which include lowering turnover intention as well as consolidate commitment (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). This, in turn, engenders improved performance (Benkhoff, 1997). Through new insights generated from substantial relational capital, firms can improve their quality, cost production, responsiveness, efficiency and asset management (Wang et al., 2014). A high trust level helps organisation members to feel significant support from their leaders, which thus promotes their commitment (Thau et al., 2007). Cunningham and MacGregor (2000) contended that the positive connections within an organisation may engender better performance from employees. Willem and Buelens (2007) discovered the important function of trust in improving both efficiency and effectiveness at organisational level as it encourages managers at various levels to share ideas and exchange information openly. From previous literature, a hypothesis is established as follows: H7b: RSC positively affects FOP. 2.9. Cognitive Social Capital (CSC) CSC relies on the fact that, as people engage as parts of a group, they are become enabled to establish shared goals and a shared vision for the organisation (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). When organisation members follow shared strategic vision and objectives, integration and collective responsibilities may be both promoted (Coleman, 1988). A clear understanding of organisational values and mission provides members with the “templates for particular types of actors” (Scott, 1995, p. 58), helping them to handle environmental uncertainties and possibly creating positive externalities for organisational performance (Andrews, 2010). From previous literature, a hypothesis is established: H7c: CSC is positively related to FOP. Figure 1 presents the research model of our study. Figure 1. Research model. Ha, Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1973237 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1973237 Page 6 of 17 3. Methodology 3.1. Sample and data collection Our research employed the questionnaire-based survey to verify the hypotheses. Respondents are managers of construction firms in Ho Chi Minh City. The questionnaire, being used as a research instrument, was piloted with a small group (n = 10) before data collection. The aim of this pilot test was to evaluate whether any items were properly designed with respect to the sentence length, wording, phrasing, or terms (Colton & Covert, 2015), therefore establishing the construct validity of the instrument (Shadish et al., 2002). An online questionnaire was distributed to 500 respondents during February and March of 2020, using Google Forms to gather data employing the convenience sampling method. A list of the surveyed construction firms was developed from the Youth Business Association in Ho Chi Minh City and the Yellow Pages, a directory which lists all registered businesses in Vietnam. Because the pilot test was sent with detailed guidance, the survey return rate was 69.2%, generating 346 valid responses. This high rate of response reduced the likelihood of response bias (Colton & Covert, 2015). All respondents were between 28 and 65 years of age at the time. Furthermore, males and females accounted for 85.7% and 14.3% of the respondents, respectively. 3.2. Measurement scale The questionnaire used existing scales adapted from prior research to establish content validity (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). The scale for CSC was adapted from Chow and Chan (2008); the scales for RSC and SSC were adapted from Chow and Chan (2008) and Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998); the scales for EKS and TKS were adapted from Reychav and Weisberg (2010) and Wang and Wang (2012); the scale for FOP was adapted from Wang and Wang (2012). The respondents were asked to evaluate the level of agreement on items by using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). All measures and constructs are displayed in Table 1. 4. Research results 4.1. Evaluation of measurement model Data analysis employed a common two-step approach in which a measurement model is developed and assessed, followed by a structural model assessment (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Data analysis used IBM SPSS Amos, version 24. Since our questionnaire instruments were selfadministered, “Harman’s single-factor test” was used to verify the. To test for Common Method Variance (CMV), a factor analysis (exploratory) was performed on one fixed factor, and the result indicated that this single factor accounted for 44.8%, which is smaller than 50% and not a majority, suggesting that the common method bias issue did not exist (Fuller et al., 2016; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Therefore, CMV does not seem to be a problem in our analysis. Our study further checks two important assumptions required by the SEM procedure, namely no significant outliers and the existence of normality (Byrne, 2016). Data screening revealed that there was no existence of any outliers in the dataset. The normality assessment was performed using kurtosis and skewness test. It was confirmed that if, in an absolute value term, kurtosis is smaller than 7.0, and skewness is smaller than 3.0, then the data was distributed normally (Byrne, 2016; Kline, 2015). Furthermore, no missing data was found in the valid questionnaires. Table 1 presents the standardised regression weight (SRW), squared multiple correlation (SMC) of all measured variables, and the critical ratio (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs in our measurement model. All SRWs were significant at p ≤ .001 as demonstrated in Table 1 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), and were > .50 (Hair et al., 2019). All SMCs were well above the threshold value of .40 (Bollen, 1989). Following Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), all CRs (ranging from .850: FOP to .945: TKS) were well above the cut-off value of .70 after eliminating two items, suggesting that the measures are reliable and surpassed the suggested values of .70. According to Ha, Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1973237 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1973237 Page 7 of 17 Management Science, 49(4), 432–445. https://doi.org/ 10.1287/mnsc.49.4.432.14428 Brockmann, E. N., & Anthony, W. P. (1998). The influence of tacit knowledge and collective mind on strategic planning. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10(2), 204–222. Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393923 Byrne, B. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Carey, S., Lawson, B., & Krause, D. R. (2011). Social capital configuration, legal bonds and performance in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4), 277–288. https://doi.org/https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.08.003 Carrie, R., Leana, I., & Buren, H. J. V. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538–555. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202136 Chang, C.-W., Huang, H.-C., Chiang, C.-Y., Hsu, C.-P., & Chang, -C.-C. (2012). Social capital and knowledge sharing: Effects on patient safety. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(8), 1793–1803. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05871.x Chang, E. P. C., Memili, E., Chrisman, J. J., Kellermanns, F. W., & Chua, J. H. (2009). Family social capital, venture preparedness, and start-up decisions: A Study of Hispanic entrepreneurs in New England. Family Business Review, 22(3), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486509332327 Chang, H. H., & Chuang, -S.-S. (2011). Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Information & Management, 48(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. im.2010.11.001 Cheng, W., Hailin, L., & Hongming, X. (2008, 23-25 May 2008). Does knowledge sharing mediate the relationship between trust and firm performance? 2008 International Symposiums on Information Processing. https://doi.org/10.1109/isip.2008.130 Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrappingwith structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 296–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300343 Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04. 001 Chow, W. S., & Chan, L. S. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management, 45(7), 458–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.06.007 Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943 Colton, D., & Covert, R. W. (2015). Designing and constructing instruments for social research and evaluation. Wiley. Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. (2000). Trust and the Design of work complementary constructs in satisfaction and performance. Human Relations, 53(12), 1575–1591. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00187267005312003 Daud, S., & Yusoff, W. F. W. (2010). Knowledge management and firm performance in SMEs: The role of social capital as a mediating variable. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 15(2), 135–155. de Pablos, O. (2004). Measuring and reporting structural capital: Lessons from European learning firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(4), 629–647. https:// doi.org/10.1108/14691930410567059 Desouza, K. C., & Awazu, Y. (2006). Knowledge management at SMEs: Five peculiarities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 32–43. https://doi. org/10.1108/13673270610650085 Dhanaraj, C., Lyles, M. A., Steensma, H. K., & Tihanyi, L. (2004). Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: The role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400098 Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002224378101800104 Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jbusres.2015.12.008 García-Sánchez, P., Díaz-Díaz, N. L., & De Saá-Pérez, P. (2019). Social capital and knowledge sharing in academic research teams. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(1), 191–207. https://doi. org/10.1177/0020852316689140 Granovetter, M. S. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action, 25–56. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Suppl 2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110 Greve, A., Benassi, M., & Sti, A. D. (2010). Exploring the contributions of human and social capital to productivity. International Review of Sociology, 20(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701003643261 Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293–317. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199804)19:4<293::AIDSMJ982>3.0.CO;2-M Ha, T., & Nguyen, P. (2020). Social capital, knowledge sharing and firm performance. Management Science Letters, 10(12), 2923–2930. https://doi.org/10.5267/j. msl.2020.4.014 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8 ed.). Cengage Learning. Haldin-Herrgard, T. (2000). Difficulties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organizations. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(4), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14691930010359252 Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., Lee, H., & Kim, Y.-G. (2013). The effects of individual motivations and social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 356–366. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.10.009 Herrero, I. (2018). How familial is family social capital? Analyzing bonding social capital in family and nonfamily firms. Family Business Review, 31(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486518784475 Hollenbeck, J. R., & Jamieson, B. B. (2015). Human capital, social capital, and social network analysis: Implications for strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Perspectives, Ha, Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1973237 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1973237 Page 14 of 17 29(3), 370–385. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2014. 0140 Holste, J. S., & Fields, D. (2010). Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13673271011015615 Hu, L., & Randel, A. E. (2014). Knowledge sharing in teams: Socialcapital, extrinsic incentives, and team innovation. Group & Organization Management, 39(2), 213–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1059601114520969 Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10705519909540118 Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. The Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/amr.2005.15281445 Kamboj, S., Kumar, V., & Rahman, Z. (2017). Social media usage and firm performance: The mediating role of social capital. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 7 (1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-017-0468-8 Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 Krause, D. R., Handfield, R. B., & Tyler, B. B. (2007). The relationships between supplier development, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance improvement. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 528–545. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jom.2006.05.007 Law, C. C. H., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2008). An empirical study of the effects of knowledge sharing and learning behaviors on firm performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(4), 2342–2349. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eswa.2007.03.004 Lefebvre, V. M., Sorenson, D., Henchion, M., & Gellynck, X. (2016). Social capital and knowledge sharing performance of learning networks. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 570–579. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.11.008 Light, I., & Dana, L. P. (2013). Boundaries of Social Capital in Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/ etap.12016 Liu, C.-H., & Lee, T. (2015). Promoting entrepreneurial orientation through the accumulation of social capital, and knowledge management. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46, 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.01.016 Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning organization: A systems approach to quantum improvement and global success. McGraw-Hill. Martínez-Torres, M. R. (2006). A procedure to design a structural and measurement model of intellectual capital: An exploratory study. Information & Management, 43(5), 617–626. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.im.2006.03.002 Maurer, I., Bartsch, V., & Ebers, M. (2011). The value of intra-organizational social capital: How it fosters knowledge transfer, innovation performance, and growth. Organization Studies, 32(2), 157–185. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0170840610394301 Miller, G. J. (2006). Managerial dilemmas: The political economy of hierarchy. Cambridge Univ. Press. Mohsen Allameh, S., Khazaei Pool, J., Jaberi, A., & Mazloomi Soveini, F. (2014). Developing a model for examining the effect of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing on organizational performance based on EFQM approach. Journal of Science & Technology Policy Management, 5(3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10. 1108/JSTPM-05-2014-0025 Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225 Nguyen, H., & Ha, T. (2020). Social capital and firm performance: A study on manufacturing and services firms in Vietnam. Management Science Letters, 10 (11), 2571–2582. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020. 3.038 Nguyen, H. T., & Huynh, D. T. (2012). The contribution of social capital into the activities of real estate companies in Vietnam. Journal of International Business Research, 11(3), 53–70. Nguyen, P. K., & Ha, T. M. (2020). Social capital, knowledge sharing and financial performance. Social Capital, 14 (1), 984–997. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. Oxford University Press. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw–Hill. Park, C., Vertinsky, I., & Becerra, M. (2015). Transfers of tacit vs. explicit knowledge and performance in international joint ventures: The role of age. International Business Review, 24(1), 89–101. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.06.004 Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: A Review and research Agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1115–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206311432640 Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-Reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi. org/10.1177/014920638601200408 Rao, Y., Guo Ken, H., & Chen, Y. (2015). Information systems maturity, knowledge sharing, and firm performance. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 23(2), 106–127. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-11-2013-0060 Reychav, I., & Weisberg, J. (2010). Bridging intention and behavior of knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(2), 285–300. https://doi.org/10. 1108/13673271011032418 Rupasingha, A., Goetz, S. J., & Freshwater, D. (2015). Social capital and economic growth: A County-Level analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 32(3), 565–572. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1074070800020654 Saha, M., & Banerjee, S. (2015). Impact of social capital on small firm performance in West Bengal. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 24(2), 91–114. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0971355715586893 Sandefur, G. D., Meier, A. M., & Campbell, M. E. (2006). Family resources, social capital, and college attendance. Social Science Research, 35(2), 525–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.11.003 Sandefur, R. L., & Laumann, E. O. (1998). A PARADIGM FOR SOCIAL CAPITAL. Rationality and Society, 10(4), 481–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 104346398010004005 Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Sage. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Mifflin and Company. Ha, Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1973237 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1973237 Page 15 of 17 Singh, P. J., & Power, D. (2014). Innovative knowledge sharing, supply chain integration and firm performance of Australian manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Research, 52(21), 6416–6433. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013. 859760 Son, T. T., Phong, L. B., & Loan, B. T. T. (2020). Transformational leadership and knowledge sharing: Determinants of firm’s operational and financial performance. SAGE Open, 10(2), 2158244020927426. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020927426 Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J. W., & Fleming, L. (2006). Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Research Policy, 35(7), 994–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2006.05.002 Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R., & Jensen, R. J. (2004). When and how trustworthiness matters: Knowledge transfer and the moderating effect of causal ambiguity. Organization Science, 15(5), 600–613. https://doi.org/ 10.1287/orsc.1040.0096 Tamer, İ., Dereli, B., & Sağlam, M. (2014). Unorthodox forms of capital in organizations: Positive psychological capital, intellectual capital and social capital. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 963–972. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.351 Tamjidyamcholo, A., Bin Baba, M. S., Tamjid, H., & Gholipour, R. (2013). Information security – Professional perceptions of knowledge-sharing intention under self-efficacy, trust, reciprocity, and shared-language. Computers & Education, 68, 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05. 010 Terry Kim, T., Lee, G., Paek, S., & Lee, S. (2013). Social capital, knowledge sharing and organizational performance: What structural relationship do they have in hotels? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(5), 683–704. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJCHM-Jan-2012-0010 Thau, S., Crossley, C., Bennett, R. J., & Sczesny, S. (2007). The relationship between trust, attachment, and antisocial work behaviors. Human Relations, 60(8), 1155–1179. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0018726707081658 Ha,T. M., & Doan,S. B. (2021). Social capital and knowledge sharing in the public sector. HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE-SOCIAL SCIENCES, 11(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.46223/ HCMCOUJS.soci.en.11.1.1903.2021 Trochim, W. M. K., & Donnelly, J. P. (2008). Research methods knowledge base. Atomic Dog/Cengage Learning. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/257085 Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393808 Uzzi, B., & Lancaster, R. (2003). Relational embeddedness and learning: The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Science, 49 (4), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4. 383.14427 van den Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13673270410567675 van den Hooff, B., & Huysman, M. (2009). Managing knowledge sharing: Emergent and engineering approaches. Information & Management, 46(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.09.002 Vera-Mun˜oz, S. C., Ho, J. L., & Chow, C. W. (2006). Enhancing knowledge sharing in public accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, 20(2), 133–155. https:// doi.org/10.2308/acch.2006.20.2.133 Villena, V. H., Revilla, E., & Choi, T. Y. (2011). The dark side of buyer–supplier relationships: A social capital perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6), 561–576. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.09.001 von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in Knowledge Creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165947 Wah, C. Y., Menkhoff, T., Loh, B., & Evers, H. (2007). Social capital and knowledge sharing in knowledge-Based organizations: An empirical study. Int. J. Knowl. Manag, 3 (1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.4018/jkm.2007010103 Wang, Z., & Wang, N. (2012). Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(10), 8899–8908. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eswa.2012.02.017 Wang, Z., Wang, N., & Liang, H. (2014). Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm performance. Management Decision, 52(2), 230–258. https://doi. org/10.1108/MD-02-2013-0064 Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should i share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148667 Willem, A., & Buelens, M. (2007). Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations: The effect of organizational characteristics on interdepartmental knowledge sharing. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 581–606. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/jopart/mul021 Wu, W.-P. (2008). Dimensions of social capital and firm competitiveness improvement: The mediating role of information sharing. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 122–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007. 00741.x Yang, S.-C., & Farn, C.-K. (2009). Social capital, behavioural control, and tacit knowledge sharing—A multi-informant design. International Journal of Information Management, 29(3), 210–218. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.09.002 Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Tontti, V. (2002). Social capital, knowledge, and the international growth of technology-based new firms. International Business Review, 11(3), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0969-5931(01)00061-0 Youndt, M. A., Subramaniam, M., & Snell, S. A. (2004). Intellectual capital profiles: An examination of investments and returns*. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 335–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-6486.2004.00435.x Zangoueinezhad, A., & Moshabaki, A. (2009). The role of structural capital on competitive intelligence. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(2), 262–280. https:// doi.org/10.1108/02635570910930136 Zaqout, F., & Abbas, M. (2012). Towards a model for understanding the influence of the factors that stimulate university students’ engagement and performance in knowledge sharing. Library Review, 61(5), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242531211280478 Zhu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2009, 20-22 September. 2009). The strategic role of innovative capabilities in the relationship among social capital, knowledge sharing and firm performance. 2009 International Conference on Management and Service Science. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/icmss.2009.5302955 Ha, Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1973237 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1973237 Page 16 of 17 © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Business & Management (ISSN: 2331-1975) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: • Immediate, universal access to your article on publication • High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online • Download and citation statistics for your article • Rapid online publication • Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards • Retention of full copyright of your article • Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article • Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Ha, Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1973237 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1973237 Page 17 of 17