Distribution of Knowledge, Group Network Structure, and Group Performance
Abstract
This study investigates the effect of knowledge distribution and group structure on performance in MBA game teams. We found that group performance was contingent on the distribution of knowledge within the group and networks of social relationships among group members. Studying 39 teams of MBA students in two management simulation games, we found that, in general, groups that had broadly distributed knowledge, i.e., groups made up of members who had general knowledge, outperformed groups that had knowledge concentrated in different members, i.e., groups made up of members who had specialized or both specialized and general knowledge. However, the advantage that the former enjoyed over the latter disappeared when groups of specialists or mixed groups had decentralized network structures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Employees can create links to other employees in order to access diverse information that they do not possess.
“However, employees can create links to other employees in order to access diverse information that they do not possess (Hollingshead 1998; Moreland et al. 1996; Rulke and Galaskiewicz 2000).”
From Enterprise System Implementation and Employee Job Performance: Understanding the Role of Advice Networks1 (2014) · cites this paper as Rulke and Galaskiewicz 2000
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 45 · Cited by 364
- Authors
- Rulke, D. L., & Galaskiewicz, J.
- Affiliations
- Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2000-05
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 612-625
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2073788127
- Cited by
- 364
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 26
- FWCI
- 10.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Management Science (publishedVersion)
- Research at York St John (York St John University) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
- Keywords
- knowledge distribution, group performance, interpersonal relationships, management simulation games, MBA students, knowledge specialization, decentralized networks
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
