SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Öneri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 27

A THREE-DIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO MANAGING SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL

Hayrettin Özler(DUMLUPINAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)
N. Derya Ergun Özler(DUMLUPINAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)
Pages
201–207
Publication Date
2007-01-10
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Nevertheless, each of these models have comparative advantages in terms of managing social and intellectual capital.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The shift from neo-classical economic paradigm to more transactional and institutional approaches is based on the arguments which assert that markets as well as hierarchies are fallible and insufficient to solely achieve organizational and/or collective goals.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The new dimensions - network models, social, intellectual and human capital- have been included in contemporary management, political and economic literature.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Nevertheless, each of these models have comparative advantages in terms of managing social and intellectual capital.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Community · Hierarchy · Market

Özet

The shift from neo-classical economic paradigm to more transactional and institutional approaches is based on the arguments which assert that markets as well as hierarchies are fallible and insufficient to solely achieve organizational and/or collective goals. The new dimensions - network models, social, intellectual and human capital- have been included in contemporary management, political and economic literature. In line with this movement, this paper is concerned with a more holistic approach to manage social and intellectual capital; and argues in favor of linking hierarchy, market, and community relations with social capital approach to improve information sharing in organizations. The paper concludes these models of interactions have individual pros and cons, and none of them has any superiority over others. Nevertheless, each of these models have comparative advantages in terms of managing social and intellectual capital.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özler, H., Özler, N. D. E. (2007). A THREE-DIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO MANAGING SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL. Öneri Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 27, 201–207. https://doi.org/10.14783/maruoneri.686891

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (20)

  1. Putnam, R.D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65- 78.
  2. Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: The Bellcnap Press of Harvard University Press.
  3. O’donnell, D.; O’regan, P.; Coates, B. & Kennedy, T. (2003). Humarı İnteraction: The Critical Source of Intangible Value. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(1), 82- 99.
  4. Steward, T. A. (1998). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. New York: Currency/ Doubleday.
  5. Klein, A.D. (1998). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital: An Introduction. (Ed.: Klein, A.D.). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  6. Florida, R.; Cushing, R. & Gates, G. (2002). When Social Capital Stifles Innovation. Harvard Business Review, Special Issue Published in August: The Innovative Enterprise, 80(8), 20-23.
  7. Adler, P.S. & Kwon, S. (2002). Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 17-40.
  8. Foley, M.W. & Edwards, B. (1996). The Paradox of Civil Society. Journal of Democracy, 7(3), 38-52.
  9. Ehin, C. (2000). Unleashing Intellectual Capital. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  10. Quinn, J.B.; Anderson, P. & Finkelstein, S. (1998). Managing Professional Intellect: Making the Most of the Best. (Ed.: Klein, A.D.). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  11. Davenport, T.H. & Prusak, L. (2001). Working Knowledge. (Çev.: Günay, G.). İstanbul: Rota.
  12. Pierce, J. L.; Kostova, T. & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298-310.
  13. Shapira, Z. (2000). Governance in Organizations: A Cognitive Perspective. Journal of Management and Organizations, 4(1-2), 53-67.
  14. Krackhard, D. & Hanson J. R. (1993). Informal Networks: the Company behind the Chart. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 104-111.
  15. Graham, A.B. & Pizzo, V.G. (1998). A Question of Balance: Case Studies in Strategic Knowledge Management. (Ed.: Klein, A.D.). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital. Boston: Butterworth- Heinemann.
  16. North, D.C. (1990). institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Gargiulo, M. & Bernassi, M. (1999). The Dark Side of Social Capital. (Eds.: Leenders, A.J. & Gabbay, S.M.). Corporate Social Capital and Liability. Boston: Kluwer.
  18. Suk, M. & Chwe, Y. (1999). Structure and Strategy in Collective Action. American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 128-156.
  19. Hansen, M.T. (1999). The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organizational Subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-111.
  20. Chesbrough, H.W. & Teece, D.J. (1998). When is Virtual Virtuous? Organizing for Innovation. (Ed.: Klein, A.D.). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.