Socio-Cognitive Theory: A Review and Assessment

 

Socio-Cognitive Theory: A Review and Assessment

Abstract: 

The Socio-cognitive theory (SCT) is a comprehensive learning model of the social and learning behaviour necessary for individuals to learn. The SCT is grounded in a definition of learning through the cognitive process in a social context. In this theory, three components are necessary for any learning response to take place: three components: personal factors, behavioural and environmental. The SCT of the firm suggests that cognitive relations allow the organisation to operate in a complex and dynamic environment. SCT is an important yet controversial theory. SCT is useful for describing learning behaviour.

This paper reviews SCT and its key concepts, its contributions to organisation studies and knowledge management and the extant empirical work and develops testable propositions. The primary purpose of this paper is to stimulate a discussion about a research agenda and future research for integrating the interdisciplinary of SCT. Building on these insights, the paper offers new ways for the evolution and impact in the management field. The work required in this area will include developing and evolving the existing body of scientific theory of socio-cognitive to help stakeholders extract actionable knowledge in new ways. 
 
Keywords: Socio-cognitive, Socio-cognitive theory, Cognitive, Mental Modes, Reflective Asymmetry.

1.           Introduction
Reihlen & Ringberg (2013) have called for the need for the firm’s Socio-Cognitive theory (SCT), which would more accurately describe workers’ behaviour by focusing on the cognitive social relationships. This theory would explain the learning-intensive activity of the firm behaviour by integrating cognitive performance, reflectivity and learning. Such a theory would replace the over-dominant theory of Resource-Based Theory (RBT) (Grant, 1991; Mahoney & Pandian, 1992; Schulze, 1992; Mosakowski, 1993; Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1995; Barney, 1996; Conner & Prahalad, 1996; Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996; Ramsay, 2001; Wright, 2001b; Coates & McDermott, 2002; Leask & Parnell, 2005; Kristandl & Bontis, 2007) and Knowledge-Based Theory (KBT) (Grant & Baden-Fuller, 1995; Grant, 1996; Spender, 1998; Sveiby, 2001; Spender, 2003; Nickerson & Zenger, 2004; Reihlen & Ringberg, 2013) of the firm. Both these theories use transaction cost of economics, contract theory, and resource-based, i.e. organisations act as agents for movement and control of such resources. Reihlen & Ringberg (2013) have suggested that SCT might be appropriate, as existing theories (RBT and KBT) do not meet the requirements as it is limited to the perspective of the theory of the firm (Reihlen & Ringberg, 2013; Nonaka et al., 2014). This paper will review, critique, assess, and suggest steps toward creating the firm’s SCT based on cognitive concepts.

The paper is organised around four key questions relevant to the following research areas: organisation studies and social learning research. The paper commences with the simple question, what is socio-cognitive by presenting the history and current status of socio-cognitive as a theory of the firm. The second question is, what does SCT contribute to organisation studies? The third question is, Is SCT empirically valid? The power of the empirical research on SCT to explain social learning within an organisation context is important to assess, particularly in light of the criticism that SCT is limited. The final fourth question is, What topics and contexts are fruitful for organisation and management researchers who use SCT? To identify how valuable SCT can be to management and organisation, scholars will be required to understand the situations in which socio-cognitive perspective can provide theoretical leverage. Subsequently, the paper will put forward directions for future research for scholars to use SCT and concepts in new ways to develop the field.

2.           Background
To define SCT, it is necessary to provide a history of the theory and a definition of socio-cognitive. In this section, a brief background on SCT is provided.

2.1.        Origins and History of Socio-Cognitive Theory
The SCT was articulated preliminary within the psychology field. However, the theory is still surrounded by controversy. During the 1940s and early 1950s, psychologists explored behaviour among individuals in groups in education settings. Miller & Dollar (1941) and Sears (1941) were the first scholars to present social learning and imitation by assessing the role stakeholders undertake in the learning environment, creating social learning theory. This literature described cognitive learning and problems as one that arises when cooperating to learn from behaviourism. Sears (1951) developed social learning theory by amalgamating psychoanalytic and stimulus-response to learning to explain human behaviour that occurs when learning and when stakeholders have different goals and visions of the outcome. Bandura (1986) disregarded psychoanalytic and took the approach by emphasising information processing and cognitive, mediated by social behaviour.

At its roots, SCT is consistent with the classic works of Shannon (1948) on the nature of communication and the behaviour of communication. Early works can further be associated with communication theory’s origins, which developed and built on the early 1920s - information theory. Specifically, the SCT is directed at the ambiguous nature of learning, in which stakeholders are influenced by behaviourism and learning principles from observational learning in a natural setting (Bozack, 2011). The first is that a problem arises, and a stakeholder has the desire or goal to assist with the outcome of the action. Because the unit of analysis is learning, the theory focuses on determining the stakeholders (environment, behaviour and personal factors.

2.2.              What is Socio-Cognitive?
Socio-cognitive is fundamentally concerned with social influence and posits that learning occurs in a social context. For example, Bandura’s (1960) seminal work on social learning demonstrated how is engaged by behaviour by taking into account a person’s experience, specifically focusing on initiating behaviour. Socio-cognitive entails integrating properties of social, cognitive functions and interaction models.  

2.3.        What is Socio-Cognitive Theory?
The goal of the theory is to explain how people learn to regulate their behaviour through control and reinforcement to achieve goal-directed behaviour. From its roots in psychology, SCT has developed along two lines: constructive and positivist. The two streams share a common assumption about people, environment setting and learning. However, they differ in their descriptive or explanatory variables and style.

2.3.1   The Fundamentals of Bandura’s Contribution.
Bandura (1986) most clearly suggested reflective analysis as a concept was required as this impacted the way agents could learn and whom the learning outcome impacts. Bandura’s reflective learning provided a way for individuals to strategically reflect and assess learning via cognitive identification comprised of three main areas: (a) environment, (b) behaviour, and (c) attitude. Specifically, Bandura (1986) suggested that individuals should identify their learning through the notion of reflectivity. Earlier works (e.g. Millard and Dollard, 1941) created a boundary on learning obligation to external agents. Bandura (1941) also suggested that agents do a learning analysis as part of the cognitive process where individuals look for a fit between the environment and behaviour.

2.3.2   The Value of Socio-Cognitive
Miller and Dollar (1941) and Sears (1941) suggested that the role and value of socio-cognitive are an inherent part of building learning. The value of reflective learning has been ignored or insufficiently addressed in RBT and KBT (Khaire, 2013; Reihlen & Ringberg, 2013; Seckler & Reihlen, 2013; Wrona et al., 2013; Nonaka et al., 2014). In place of clearly identifying learning, an end criterion of cognitive has been inserted. He argues that reflective learning is a driving behaviour in terms of utility maximisation, which is suggested to offer a step towards discovering new ways of learning.

2.3.3     Constructive Socio-Cognitive
Constructive researchers have focused on identifying knowledge flows as situations in which the stakeholder is likely to have conflict goals towards the benefit of an organisation (Davidson, 2002). As such, individuals’ limited cognitive behaviour is quantitative, mainly by the need to see performance-related results. From a theoretical perspective, the constructivist stream has been most concerned with exploiting mechanisms and instruments for organisational outcomes that solve the organisation’s competitive prospects and problems (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1997; Chiu et al., 2006; Lin & Huang, 2008; Hmieleski & Baron, 2009). A constructive socio-cognitive contains a more formal characteristic involving the specification of assumptions and deduction.

2.3.4   Positivist Socio-Cognitive
Positivist researchers are concerned with a general theory of positivist relationships and links, a theory that can be applied to knowledge workers or other socio-cognitive relationships. In comparison with the positivist stream, positivism is abstract and qualitative, which involves careful specification of knowledge workers and behavioural themes. The focus of positivist socio-cognitive literature is on determining the relationships and reflective learning, behaviour versus outcome, between stakeholders (Liao et al., 2010; Lin & Huang, 2010; Tsai & Cheng, 2010; Wei et al., 2010; Emich, 2011; Maden et al., 2013).

2.4.        Criticism of Constructive and Positive Socio-Cognitive
This section presents an overview criticism of constructive and positive. In comparison with constructive and positive, each presents a different focus and greater interest in general for both theory and practice implications. It can be noted that Bandura (1986) focuses on techniques rather than on the theory itself. His notion of adapting reflectivity in cognitive learning provides an opportunity for organisation management as a valuable strategic tool. Both Millard and Dollard's (1941) and Bandura’s (1986) SCT can be criticised in five ways:

1.     Limited and inadequate explanation of the process;
2.     Limited and incomplete linkage in the organisation environment;
3.     Insufficient attention is paid to the reflective learning in a complex and dynamic situation;
4.     Lack of attention paid to business operations and level of analysis, and
5.   Inadequate organisation environment assessment to determine the effect of reflective analysis and impact, both on the individual and organisation.

The constructive socio-cognitive offers a broader view of where efficient learning could be applied, whilst the positive identifies a narrow view specific to the processes and linkage on their merit—however, both these combined complement one another. According to Bandura (2010), a positive socio-cognitive can offer a more complex view than a constructive one. The focus of constructive is more inclined toward determining a form of certainty and minimising risk by controlling behaviour (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1997; Wright, 2001a; Hmieleski & Baron, 2009), whilst positive does not allow this to happen and contains a higher risk of diversifying the outcome (Lin & Huang, 2010; Emich, 2011; Maden et al., 2013). Both constructive and positive socio-cognitive leads to different outcomes because either the controlled or free alignment functions the behavioural input and output. Overall, the heart of the constructivist stream in socio-cognitive is the exchange between associated costs and outcomes. The positive stream is concerned with the mechanisms of behavioural processes that aid productivity and indicate individuals’ self-interest and free will to support the outcome based on motivation factors.

2.5.        Key Concepts in Socio-Cognitive Theory

The previous section highlighted the relationships between learning and SCT. The SCT primary elements illustrated in Figure 1 are discussed in this section.

Figure 1: Key elements of SCT

Environmental factors. At the essence of SCT is that environmental factors comprise social factors (surrounding the observational learning and types of people, i.e. managerial, leaders) and physical factors such as the tools and objects available bounded by an organisation to deliver a service or product. For example, at a broad level, a stakeholder’s behaviour, which can be positive or negative, affects the outcome, such as news, sales, and performance. Environmental factors provide a perspective regarding the underlying quality of learning for the individual or organisation. The environment can also affect how learning increases the enhancement of understanding of a situation.

Personal factors. Personal factor is a necessary characteristic of the environment. It represents the characteristics of an individual or organisation’s ability to process information or knowledge that occurred in the environmental space. Processing such information can be positive or negative, and a decision must be made for the type of action to be taken. SCT focuses primarily on the ability to learn to convey an outcome related to performance attributes. With that said, some scholars have examined the actions taken by stakeholders in an educational setting. For instance, improving education learning is generally considered a positive environment because of the costs associated with obtaining certification, and this may issue a positive return on career stability. SCT focuses mainly on the learning actions of the individual, and this is the ability to observe environmental factors.

Behavioural factors. Behavioural factors are the third element in the SCT. According to personal factors, the individual who lacks knowledge or understanding of a situation or problem in question would unsuccessfully contribute nor assist in addressing or solving the matter. A key point to the behavioural factor is that a stakeholder would obtain interest that would benefit and gain a positive signal, such as continuing or discontinuing.

2.6.        Socio-Cognitive Theory and the Management Literature
Within the management literature, there is no existing research that has systematically described or applied the core ideas of SCT and how management scholars could apply them. Development in advancing technology has changed how organisations deliver services, products, and knowledge transition. This is asserted by Reihlen & Ringberg (2013) that SCT is very different from the existing theory of the firm (such as RBV, ST, KBV). However, the SCT has several links to developing mainstream organisation research (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2011; Reihlen & Ringberg, 2013; Seckler & Reihlen, 2013; Wrona et al., 2013; Nonaka et al., 2014).

The management literature can be divided into three views. Firstly, the 1980s – 1990s focused on a variety of resources and business improvements. The manufacturing industry heavily drove this perspective, and the economy at the time was industrialised (Henderson & McAdam, 1998; Mitchell & McAdam, 1999; McAdam & Bailie, 2002; Lucardie et al., 2007). Secondly, the information age arrived in the 1990s – 2000, resulting in a service economy (Ohta & Kase, 1978; Levy & McInturff, 1987; Levy & McInturff, 1989; Levitt et al., 1999; Nissen & Levitt, 2004; Sheffer et al., 2013). Thus, Drucker’s (1993) post-capitalist society lays the foundations that organisations require if they were to shift toward knowledge-service and knowledge-intensive organisations. Thirdly, the knowledge age commenced in early 2000 – 2010, creating the transmission of the knowledge economy. Following the historical account of the development of the management literature, there is a clear trend in progress. However, there is a lack of consensus on the direction of management development. This is because of the limited lack of research background, robustness in the concepts and high reliance on the overuse of theories. Knowledge research still plays a substantial role in the management literature, but these appear to represent knowledge of the organisation or information surrounding the organisation and do not consider the socio-relations.

In the management literature, the perspective of SCT is rarely explored as the asymmetry is linked to the power of the leader in an organisation. Therefore SCT is distinctive. The focal point in management is to discover the ‘laws of behaviour’ to increase productivity (Tzortzaki & Mihiotis, 2014). SCT is similar to the communities of practice approach – the learning mechanism of knowledge transfer (Wenger, 1998; Adams & Freeman, 2000; Wenger, 2000; Kimble & Hildreth, 2005; Verburg & Andriessen, 2006). Compared to RBT, KBT, and ST, SCT is also concerned with the efficiency and processing of information/knowledge to organise and address the situation. However, RBT, KBT and ST are only concerned with optimal control of results for the benefit of the organisation and decision-making driven by managers and strategists (Wernerfelt, 1984; Mahoney & Pandian, 1992; Peteraf, 1993; Hart, 1995; Wernerfelt, 1995; Lockett, 2001; Gupta, 2006).

3.           Contributions of Socio-Cognitive Theory
Socio-Cognitive theory re-establishes the importance of cognitive and socio-relations in learning (Reihlen & Ringberg, 2013; Seckler & Reihlen, 2013; Wrona et al., 2013). SCT supports developing and understanding the problems by structuring. As Reihlen & Ringberg (2013) described, management research has become organisation topic-based increasingly and practised rather than theory. SCT also makes three specific contributions to management research. The first is the treatment of the cognitive aspect. In SCT, cognitive processes are regarded as the learning process: it has reflective learning and can help develop the situation better. This gives importance to innovation and creativity enhancement.

There is a lack of illustration of this research in this literature. Subsequently, several authors have expressed the lack and need for this (Sack et al., 2006; Davis & Hufnagel, 2007; Khaire, 2013; Reihlen & Ringberg, 2013; Seckler & Reihlen, 2013; Wrona et al., 2013). One particular of relevance from an SCT perspective is the representation of reflective learning. Also, when the situation is reflected, it will provide richer information and is more likely to engage stakeholder behaviours inconsistent with their interests and viewpoints. The second contribution of SCT is its ability to have a higher risk in reflecting implications. In management research, organisations are assumed to operate in a competitive environment and have uncertain futures, hence the need for strategists to envision and lead the organisation.

In the extant literature, an organisation benefits from the managers and strategists. While RBT, KBT and ST are necessary for organisations, it is argued that such actions are mainly meaningless on their own when operational stakeholders are faced with dynamic challenges (Tzortzaki & Mihiotis, 2014). SCT may extend the theory of the firm by representing the problems. Conversely, organisations would benefit from embracing harmonised social relations and structures that may have the potential to stimulate the reflective learning process (Reihlen & Ringberg, 2013).

3.1       Recommendations for Further Research on Socio-Cognitive Theory
There are few substantive contributions to understanding the cognitive and social relations that occur among teams and individuals in a dynamic and complex environment (Reihlen & Ringberg, 2013; Seckler & Reihlen, 2013; Wrona et al., 2013). Further research can be paired in management, biology, anthropology and economics to formulate a complete picture of the insights gained about the constructs, processes and relationships of SCT. Bandura’s (1986) work on cognitive learning does not constitute all of what may be considered in the SCT. However, the theory contains a foundation. The SCT requires further theoretical development to support and improve the criticisms.

In contrast, less research has sought to extend beyond the boundaries of an organisation’s environment and teams. Subsequently, further research is required to develop a more comprehensive theory to explain the broader range of socio-cognitive relations in an organisation phenomenon set. One potential area to examine the potential to inform SCT is that learning is repetitive over time; agents become adaptive in the more extended periods of cognitive behaviour. Thus, Bandura (1986) adds that reflective learning in a dynamic organisation context represents a viable area for future research. Scholars have examined how learning occurs mainly in an educational environment setting. However, the effectiveness of such socio-cognitive may depend on the type of organisation. 

As the previous section shows, current SCT research is comprised of learning. Reihlen & Ringberg (2013) and others have criticised SCT for being excessively narrow and having few testable implications. Furthermore, it is suggested that research be adapted and explored in new areas such as management. Thus, the recommendation is to expand to a complex range of contexts to enable a richer representation in management and organisation studies. In specific, two areas are particularly appropriate. One is to apply the socio-cognitive process to organisation research topics related to utilising knowledge in complex situations. Examples of such topics are management (Seckler & Reihlen, 2013; Wrona et al., 2013). SCT may contribute to the overall framework where various stakeholders are involved in a situation.

This leads to a better understanding of when such cognitive and reflective learning will likely assist and represent and whether or not the socio-cognitive process will be effective. The second area for expansion requires a shift beyond the traditional behaviour of the organisation to a broader range of individual and team behaviour. Much existing research treats organisation behaviour with the outcome of perceived benefits. However, organisation behaviour can vary on the behaviour of the organisation and the outcome of the organisation’s performance. Also, existing research focuses on the rewards for the organisation from a higher level, thus, neglecting problems and situations that are complex at the operational level. Consequently, further research to build on the SCT would enhance the richness if researchers consider the broader socio-cognitive processes and socio-relations spectrum.

In summary of the review and assessment above:
·         Explore SCT in organisation settings in which the theory could have greater relevance;
·         Expand SCT to richer contexts because existing works have been excessively narrow;

A paper by Reihlen & Ringberg (2013); and Nonaka et al., (2014) have emphasised the need for theory, respectively. Similarly, existing studies (Seckler & Reihlen, 2013; Wrona et al., 2013) are requesting for incorporation of SCT within organisation and management studies. The final recommendation summary is that management and organisational researchers should look beyond the RBT, KBT and ST in the management literature. 

The advantages of RBT, KBT and ST have been carefully developed from the assumptions and propositions for the organisation. However, much of the literature on these theories has already accomplished many theory-building. For the development of management and organisation research, there is now a timely need to build a theory on the socio-cognitive process. In the existing theory (RBT, KBT and ST), scholars have too heavily relied upon restrictive narrow perspectives such as strategies to drive effectiveness and efficiency. Therefore, it is more beneficial to treat socio-cognitive processes in the management literature.

A model of SCT reflective learning search

Figure 2: An integrated conceptual framework

4.           Conclusion
This paper critically assessed the current understanding of the socio-cognitive theory in management so that it can contribute to applying it to individuals and team learning as well as organisations beneficially. More specifically, the papers discuss the nature and elements of SCT, outlining the current state of SCT both in theory and practice in research and comparative with resource-based, knowledge-based and stakeholder theory. It is hoped the paper contributes to shedding additional light on the broader range of the SCT critique and the socio-cognitive processes.

The paper has suggested that SCT may provide an alternative to the firm’s traditional resource-based and knowledge-based theory to understand the firm’s socio-cognitive behaviour. Traditionally, the resource-based and knowledge-based theory does not effectively describe the cognitive learning behaviour of agents, and SCT provides an additional means to fill in these gaps by looking at the process and content of the agents’ relationships. In addition, it has been criticised.

While the SCT has received significant attention in the psychology literature, no specific theory in the theory of the firm has been identified which explains the cognitive and social relationships of learning between the individual (agents) and firm. Using the logic of the reflective analysis in the SCT to explain learning may provide the necessary theoretical basis for current learning formulations in a firm context. Such an approach may support the process and issues raised in the assessment and review. In addition, the cognitive approach based on the underpinning of learning would be a dimension. The absence of an SCT basis within knowledge management has been of recent criticism and problem, and the inclusion of the SCT dimension would resolve this.

The review and assessment also addressed the criticisms presented to help the socio-cognitive shift towards an agent and organisation analysis. Acknowledging the cognitive and the socio-relations may contribute and be an essential step towards evolving the firm’s theory and SCT.

REFERENCES

Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C. & Galan, J. L. (2006) The resource-based theory: dissemination and main trends. Strategic Management Journal, Volume: 27, Issue: 7, Page(s): 621-636.
Adams, E. C. & Freeman, C. (2000) Communities of practice: bridging technology and knowledge assessment. Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume: 4, Issue: 1, Page(s): 38-43.
Alvarez, S. A. (2001) The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, Volume: 27, Issue: 6, Page(s): 755-775.
Ammann, E. (2011) Knowledge Dynamics and Organisational Learning Cycles. In: Lehner, F. & Bredl, K., of editor of. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Vols 1 and 2, 2011, Nr Reading. Academic Conferences Ltd, Volume: Issue: Page(s): 10-19.
Andersén, J. (2010) Resource-based competitiveness: managerial implications of the resource-based view. Strategic Direction, Volume: 26, Issue: 5, Page(s): 3-5.
Arend, R. J. & Lévesque, M. (2009) Is the Resource-Based View a Practical Organizational Theory? Organization Science, Volume: 21, Issue: 4, Page(s): 913-930.
Arya, B. & Zhiang, L. (2007) Understanding Collaboration Outcomes From an Extended Resource-Based View Perspective: The Roles of Organisational Characteristics, Partner Attributes, and Network Structures Journal of Management, Volume: 33, Issue: 5, Page(s): 697-723.
Barlow, J. & Jashapara, A. (1998) Organisational learning and inter-firm ‘partnering’ in the UK construction industry. The Learning Organization, Volume: 5, Issue: 2, Page(s): 86-98.
Barney, J. (2001) The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, Volume: 27, Issue: 6, Page(s): 625-641.
Barney, J. B. (1996) The Resource-Based Theory of the Firm. Organization Science, Volume: 7, Issue: 5, Page(s): 469-469.
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, Volume: 42, Issue: 3, Page(s): 1872-1888.
Coates, T. T. & McDermott, C. M. (2002) An exploratory analysis of new competencies: a resource-based view perspective. Journal of Operations Management, Volume: 20, Issue: 5, Page(s): 435-450.
Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A. & Huff, S. (1999) Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, Volume: 23, Issue: 2, Page(s): 145-158.
Compeau, D. R. & Higgins, C. A. (1995) Application of Social Cognitive Theory to Training for Computer Skills. Information Systems Research, Volume: 6, Issue: 2, Page(s): 118-143.
Conner, K. R. & Prahalad, C. K. (1996) A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus Opportunism. Organization Science, Volume: 7, Issue: 5, Page(s): 477-501.
Curado, C. (2006) Organisational learning and organisational design. The Learning Organization, Volume: 13, Issue: 1, Page(s): 25-48.
Davidson, E. J. (2002) Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quarterly, Volume: 26, Issue: 4, Page(s): 329-358.
Davis, C. J. & Hufnagel, E. M. (2007) Through the Eyes of Experts: A Socio-cognitive Perspective on the Automation of Fingerprint Work. MIS Quarterly, Volume: 31, Issue: 4, Page(s): 681-703.
Donaldson, T. (1999) Making Stakeholder Theory Whole. Academy of Management Review, Volume: 24, Issue: 2, Page(s): 237-241.
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. (1995) The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, Volume: 20, Issue: 1, Page(s): 65-91.
Drejer, A. (2000) Organisational Learning and Competence Development. Learning Organization, Volume: 7, Issue: 4, Page(s): 206-220.
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996) Resource-based View of Strategic Alliance Formation: Strategic and Social Effects in Entrepreneurial Firms. Organization Science, Volume: 7, Issue: 2, Page(s): 136-150.
Emich, K. J. (2011) A Social Cognitive Investigation Of Group Inefficiency. Academy of Management Proceedings, Volume: 2011, Issue: 1, Page(s): 1-6.
Grant, R. M. (1991) The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, Volume: 33, Issue: 3, Page(s): 114-135.
Grant, R. M. (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, Volume: 17, Issue: S2, Page(s): 109-122.
Grant, R. M. & Baden-Fuller, C. (1995) A KNOWLEDGE-BASED THEORY OF INTER-FIRM COLLABORATION. Academy of Management Proceedings, Volume: 1995, Issue: 1, Page(s): 17-21.
Gupta, V. K. (2006) Firm strategy and knowledge management in strategic supply chain relationships: A knowledge based view. 3361129 Ph.D., University of Missouri - Columbia, Ann Arbor.
Hart, S. L. (1995) A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm. Academy of Management Review, Volume: 20, Issue: 4, Page(s): 986-1014.
Henderson, J. & McAdam, R. (1998) A more subjective approach to business improvement and organisational change evaluation. Total Quality Management, Volume: 9, Issue: 4-5, Page(s): 116-120.
Hmieleski, K. M. & Baron, R. A. (2009) Entrepreneurs’ Optimism And New Venture Performance: A Social Cognitive Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, Volume: 52, Issue: 3, Page(s): 473-488.
Khaire, M. (2013) Fashioning an Industry: Socio-cognitive Processes in the Construction of Worth of a New Industry. Organization Studies, Volume: 35, Issue: 1, Page(s): 41-74.
Kimble, C. & Hildreth, P. (2005) Dualities, distributed communities of practice and knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume: 9, Issue: 4, Page(s): 102-113.
Kochan, T. A. & Rubinstein, S. A. (2000) Toward a Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: The Saturn Partnership. Organization Science, Volume: 11, Issue: 4, Page(s): 367-386.
Kristandl, G. & Bontis, N. (2007) Constructing a definition for intangibles using the resource-based view of the firm. Management Decision, Volume: 45, Issue: 9, Page(s): 1510-1524.
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K. & Litz, R. A. (2008) Stakeholder Theory: Reviewing a Theory That Moves Us. Journal of Management, Volume: 34, Issue: 6, Page(s): 1152-1189.
Leask, G. & Parnell, J. A. (2005) Integrating Strategic Groups and the Resource Based Perspective:: Understanding the Competitive Process. European Management Journal, Volume: 23, Issue: 4, Page(s): 458-470.
Levitt, R. E., Thomsen, J., Christiansen, T. R., Kunz, J. C., Jin, Y. & Nass, C. (1999) Simulating Project Work Processes and Organisations: Toward a Micro-Contingency Theory of Organizational Design. Management Science, Volume: 45, Issue: 11, Page(s): 1479-1495.
Levy, S. & McInturff, P. (1987) Information Theory in Practice. Industrial Management + Data Systems, Volume: Issue: Page(s): 6.
Levy, S. & McInturff, P. (1989) Information Theory in Practice: An Interdisciplinary Framework. Industrial Management + Data Systems, Volume: 89, Issue: 4, Page(s): 24.
Liao, H., Liu, D. & Loi, R. (2010) Looking at Both Sides of the Social Exchange Coin: A Social Cognitive Perspective on the Joint Effects of Relationship Quality and Differentiation on Creativity. Academy of Management Journal, Volume: 53, Issue: 5, Page(s): 1090-1109.
Lin, T.-C. & Huang, C.-C. (2008) Understanding knowledge management system usage antecedents: An integration of social cognitive theory and task technology fit. Information & Management, Volume: 45, Issue: 6, Page(s): 410-417.
Lin, T.-C. & Huang, C.-C. (2010) Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: The role of social exchange and social cognitive on project teams. Information & Management, Volume: 47, Issue: 3, Page(s): 188-196.
Lockett, A. (2001) The resource-based view and economics. Journal of Management, Volume: 27, Issue: 6, Page(s): 723-754.
Lucardie, L., Hendriks, P. & van Ham, J. (2007) Reconsidering knowledge ... and business improvement. In: Remenyi, D., of editor of. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning, 2007, Nr Reading. Academic Conferences Ltd, Volume: Issue: Page(s): 235-243.
Maden, C., Ozcelik, H. & Karacay, G. (2013) Understanding Employees’ Responses to Unmet Career Expectations: A Social Cognitive Theory Approach. Academy of Management Proceedings, Volume: 2013, Issue: 1, Page(s).
Mahoney, J. T. & Pandian, J. R. (1992) The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, Volume: 13, Issue: 5, Page(s): 363-380.
Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H. & Raposo, M. (2011) Stakeholder theory: issues to resolve. Management Decision, Volume: 49, Issue: 2, Page(s): 226-252.
Massey, C. & Walker, R. (1999) Aiming for organisational learning: consultants as agents of change. The Learning Organization, Volume: 6, Issue: 1, Page(s): 38-44.
McAdam, R. & Bailie, B. (2002) Business performance measures and alignment impact on strategy: The role of business improvement models. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Volume: 22, Issue: 9, Page(s): 972-996.
Mitchell, N. & McAdam, R. (1999) Exploring components of business improvement in the business sector. Total Quality Management, Volume: 10, Issue: 4-5, Page(s): 653-658.
Money, W. H. (1995) Applying Group Support Systems to Classroom Settings: A Social Cognitive Learning Theory Explanation. Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume: 12, Issue: 3, Page(s): 65-80.
Mosakowski, E. (1993) A Resource-Based Perspective on the Dynamic Strategy-Performance Relationship: An Empirical Examination of the Focus and Differentiation Strategies in Entrepreneurial Firms. Journal of Management, Volume: 19, Issue: 4, Page(s): 819-839.
Nickerson, J. A. & Zenger, T. R. (2004) A Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm—The Problem-Solving Perspective. Organization Science, Volume: 15, Issue: 6, Page(s): 617-632.
Nissen, M. E. & Levitt, R. E. (2004) Agent-based modeling of knowledge dynamics. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Volume: 2, Issue: 3, Page(s): 169-183.
Nonaka, I., Kodama, M., Hirose, A. & Kohlbacher, F. (2014) Dynamic fractal organisations for promoting knowledge-based transformation – A new paradigm for organisational theory. European Management Journal, Volume: 32, Issue: 1, Page(s): 137-146.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (2011) The Wise Leader. Harvard Business Review, Volume: 89, Issue: 5, Page(s): 58-+.
Ohta, H. & Kase, S. (1978) An information theory approach to ranking problems. International Journal of Production Research, Volume: 16, Issue: 5, Page(s): 395-407.
Pemberton, J. D. & Stonehouse, G. H. (2000) Organisational learning and knowledge assets - an essential partnership. The Learning Organization, Volume: 7, Issue: 4, Page(s): 184-194.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993) The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, Volume: 14, Issue: 3, Page(s): 179-191.
Ramsay, J. (2001) The resource based perspective, rents, and purchasing’s contribution to sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Supply Chain Management, Volume: 37, Issue: 3, Page(s): 38-47.
Reihlen, M. & Ringberg, T. (2013) Uncertainty, pluralism, and the knowledge-based theory of the firm: From J.-C. Spender’s contribution to a socio-cognitive approach. European Management Journal, Volume: 31, Issue: 6, Page(s): 706-716.
Richter, U. H., Dow, K. & Singh, R. (2013) Stakeholder Theory: A Deliberative Perspective. Academy of Management Proceedings, Volume: 2013, Issue: 1, Page(s).
Sack, W., Détienne, F., Ducheneaut, N., Burkhardt, J.-M., Mahendran, D. & Barcellini, F. (2006) A Methodological Framework for Socio-Cognitive Analyses of Collaborative Design of Open Source Software. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Volume: 15, Issue: 2-3, Page(s): 229-250.
Schulze, W. S. (1992) The Two Resource-Based Models Of The Firm: Definitions And Implications For Research. Academy of Management Proceedings, Volume: 1992, Issue: 1, Page(s): 37-41.
Seckler, C. & Reihlen, M. R. (2013) Employee Reputation: What We Know and Where We are Headed
Quality Management in a Top Tier Accounting Firm:Towards A Socio-Cognitive Model. Academy of Management Proceedings, Volume: 2013, Issue: 1, Page(s).
Sheffer, D. A., Katila, R., Levitt, R. & Taylor, J. E. (2013) “Innovation of Unique, Complex Products”. Academy of Management Proceedings, Volume: 2013, Issue: 1, Page(s).
Spender, J. C. (1998) Pluralist Epistemology and the Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. Organization, Volume: 5, Issue: 2, Page(s): 233-256.
Spender, J. C. (2003) Exploring uncertainty and emotion in the knowledge-based theory of the firm. Information Technology & People, Volume: 16, Issue: 3, Page(s): 266-288.
Stajkovic, A. D. & Luthans, F. (1997) Business ethics across cultures: A social cognitive model. Journal of World Business, Volume: 32, Issue: 1, Page(s): 17-34.
Sveiby, K.-E. (2001) A knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide in strategy formulation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Volume: 2, Issue: 4, Page(s): 344-358.
Tsai, M.-T. & Cheng, N.-C. (2010) Programmer perceptions of knowledge-sharing behavior under social cognitive theory. Expert Syst Appl, Volume: 37, Issue: 12, Page(s): 8479-8485.
Tzortzaki, A. M. & Mihiotis, A. (2014) A Review of Knowledge Management Theory and Future Directions. Knowledge and Process Management, Volume: 21, Issue: 1, Page(s): 29-41.
Urquhart, C. (2000) Knowledge Management — a case of managing knowledge or organisational learning? Vine, Volume: 30, Issue: 4, Page(s): 3-4.
Vakola, M. & Rezgui, Y. (2000) Organisational learning and innovation in the construction industry. The Learning Organization, Volume: 7, Issue: 4, Page(s): 174-184.
Verburg, R. M. & Andriessen, J. H. E. (2006) The assessment of communities of practice. Knowledge and Process Management, Volume: 13, Issue: 1, Page(s): 13-25.
Wei, K.-K., Teo, H.-H., Chan, H. C. & Tan, B. C. Y. (2010) Conceptualising and Testing a Social Cognitive Model of the Digital Divide. Information Systems Research, Volume: 22, Issue: 1, Page(s): 170-187.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice : Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2000) Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization, Volume: 7, Issue: 2, Page(s): 225-246.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, Volume: 5, Issue: 2, Page(s): 171-180.
Wernerfelt, B. (1995) The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after. Strategic Management Journal, Volume: 16, Issue: 3, Page(s): 171-174.
Wright, B. E. (2001a) Work Motivation In The Public Sector: An Application Of Goal And Social Cognitive Theories. Academy of Management Proceedings, Volume: 2001, Issue: 1, Page(s): D1-D6.
Wright, P. M. (2001b) Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, Volume: 27, Issue: 6, Page(s): 701-721.
Wrona, T., Ladwig, T. & Gunnesch, M. (2013) Socio-cognitive processes in strategy formation – A conceptual framework. European Management Journal, Volume: 31, Issue: 6, Page(s): 697-705.