LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Mariotti, Francesca; Delbridge, Rick
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
This paper builds on Granovetter's distinction between strong and weak ties [Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. Amer. J. Sociol. 78(6) 1360–1380] in order to respond to recent calls for a more dynamic and processual understanding of networks. The concepts of potential and latent tie are deductively identified, and their implications for understanding how and why networks emerge, evolve, and change are explored. A longitudinal empirical study conducted with companies operating in the European motorsport industry reveals that firms take strategic actions to search for potential ties and reactivate latent ties in order to solve problems of network redundancy and overload. Examples are given, and their characteristics are examined to provide theoretical elaboration of the relationship between the types of tie and network evolution. These conceptual and empirical insights move understanding of the managerial challenge of building effective networks beyond static structural contingency models of optimal network forms to highlight the processes and capabilities of dynamic relationship building and network development. In so doing, this paper highlights the interrelationship between search and redundancy and the scope for strategic action alongside path dependence and structural influences on network processes.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Afuah, A. 2000. How much do your co-opetitors' capabilities matter in the face of technological change? Strategic Management J. 21(2) 397-404.
    • Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(3) 425-455.
    • Allen, T. J. 1977. Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D Organization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    • Baker, W. E., R. R. Faulkner, G. A. Fisher. 1998. Hazards of the market: The continuity and dissolution of interorganizational market relationships. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 63(2) 147-177.
    • Barabási, A.-L., R. Albert. 1999. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439) 509-512.
    • Baum, J. A. C., T. J. Rowley, A. V. Shipilov, Y. Chuang. 2005. Dancing with strangers: Aspiration performance and the search for underwriting syndicate partners. Admin. Sci. Quart. 50(4) 536-575.
    • Biggart, N. W., R. Delbridge. 2004. Systems of exchange. Acad. Management Rev. 29(1) 28-49.
    • Birkinshaw, J., J. Bessant, R. Delbridge. 2007. Finding, forming and performing: Creating new networks for discontinuous innovation. Calif. Management Rev. 49(3) 67-84.
    • Breiger, R. L. 1974. The duality of persons and groups. Soc. Forces 53(2) 181-190.
    • Burt, R. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. N. Nohria, R. Eccles, eds. Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 57-91.
    • Burt, R. S. 2000a. Decay functions. Soc. Networks 22(1) 1-28.
    • Burt, R. S. 2000b. The network structure of social capital. R. I. Sutton, B. M. Staw, eds. Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 22. Elsevier/JAI, New York, 345-423.
    • Burt, R. S. 2001. Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. N. Lin, K. S. Cook, R. Burt, eds. Social Capital: Theory and Research. Aldine de Gruyter, Berlin, 201-247.
    • Burt, R. S. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. Amer. J. Sociol. 110(2) 349-399.
    • Coffey, A., P. Atkinson. 1996. Making Sense of Qualitative Data. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
    • Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Amer. J. Sociol. 94(Supplement) S95-S120.
    • Danermark, B., M. Ekstrom, L. Jakobsen, J. Karlsson. 2002. Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences. Routledge, London.
    • Dhanaraj, C., A. Parkhe. 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks. Acad. Management Rev. 30(3) 659-669.
    • DiMaggio, P. J., W. W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 48(2) 147-160.
    • Dyer, J. H., K. Nobeoka. 2000. Creating and managing a highperformance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management J. 21(3) 345-367.
    • Dyer, J. H., H. Singh. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad. Management Rev. 23(4) 660-679.
    • Dyer J. H., D. S. Cho, W. Chu. 1998. Strategic supplier segmentation: The next “best practice” in supply chain management. Calif. Management Rev. 40(2) 57-77.
    • Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Management Rev. 14(4) 532-550.
    • Elfring, T., W. Hulsink. 2007. Networking by entrepreneurs: Patterns of tie-formation in emerging organizations. Organ. Stud. 28(12) 1849-1872.
    • Faems, D., M. Janssens, B. van Looy. 2007. The initiation and evolution of interfirm knowledge transfer in R&D relationships. Organ. Stud. 28(11) 1699-1728.
    • Faulkner, R. R. 1983. Music on Demand: Composer and Careers in the Hollywood Film Industry. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ.
    • Fichman, M., D. A. Levinthal. 1991. Honeymoons and the liability of adolescence: A new perspective on duration dependence in social and organizational relationships. Acad. Management Rev. 16(2) 442-468.
    • Gargiulo, M., M. Benassi. 1999. The dark side of social capital. R. T. A. J. Leenders, S. M. Gabbay, eds. Corporate Social Capital and Liability. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 298-322.
    • Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. Amer. J. Sociol. 78(6) 1360-1380.
    • Granovetter, M. S. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Amer. J. Sociol. 91(3) 481-510.
    • Granovetter, M. S. 1992. Problems of explanation in economic sociology. N. Nohria, R. Eccles, eds. Networks and Organizations. Harvard Business Press, Boston, 25-26.
    • Gulati, R. 1995. Familiarity breeds trust? The implications of repeated ties. Acad. Management J. 38(1) 85-112.
    • Gulati, R., M. Gargiulo. 1999. Where do interorganizational networks come from? Amer. J. Sociol. 104(5) 1439-1493.
    • Gulati, R., M. Sytch, A. Tatarynowicz. 2012. The rise and fall of small worlds: Exploring the dynamics of social structure. Organ. Sci. 23(2) 449-471.
    • Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational sub-units. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(1) 82-111.
    • Ibarra, H. 1992. Structural alignments, individual strategies, and managerial action: Elements toward a network theory of getting things done. N. Nohria, R. Eccles, eds. Networks and Organizations. Harvard Business Press, Boston, 156-189.
    • Inkpen, A. C., E. W. K. Tsang. 2005. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Acad. Management Rev. 30(1) 146-165.
    • Jenkins, M., S. Floyd. 2001. Trajectories in the evolution of technology: A multi-level study of competition in Formula One racing. Organ. Stud. 22(6) 945-969.
    • Kogut, B., U. Zander. 1996. What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organ. Sci. 7(5) 502-518.
    • Krackhardt, D. 1992. The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. N. Nohria, R. G. Eccles, eds. Network and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action. Harvard Business Press, Boston, 216-239.
    • Larson, A. 1992. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(1) 76-104.
    • Levin, D. Z., R. Cross. 2004. The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Sci. 50(11) 1477-1490.
    • Levinthal, D. A., M. Fichman. 1988. Dynamics of interorganizational attachments: Auditor-client relationships. Admin. Sci. Quart. 33(3) 345-369.
    • Lincoln, Y. S., E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
    • Marsden, P. V., K. E. Campbell. 1984. Measuring tie strength. Soc. Forces 63(2) 482-501.
    • Maurer, I., M. Ebers. 2006. Dynamics of social capital and their performance implications: Lessons from biotechnology start-ups. Admin. Sci. Quart. 51(2) 262-292.
    • McEvily, B., A. Zaheer. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in comparative capabilities. Strategic Management J. 20(12) 1133-1156.
    • McFadyen, M. A., M. Semadeni, A. Cannella Jr. 2009. Value of strong ties to disconnected others: Examining knowledge creation in biomedicine. Organ. Sci. 20(3) 552-564.
    • McPherson, J. M., L. Smith-Lovin. 1987. Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-toface groups. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 52(3) 370-379.
    • Muthusamy, S. K., M. A. White. 2005. Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: A social exchange view. Organ. Stud. 26(3) 415-441.
    • Nahapiet, J., S. Ghoshal. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and organizational advantage. Acad. Management Rev. 23(2) 242-266.
    • Nooteboom, B. 2000. Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
    • Obstfeld, D. 2005. Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 50(1) 100-130.
    • Owen-Smith, J., W. W. Powell. 2003. The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Res. Policy 32(9) 1695-1711.
    • Parkhe, A., S. Wasserman, D. Ralston. 2006. New frontiers in network theory development. Acad. Management Rev. 31(3) 560-568.
    • Parsons, T. 1968. The Structure of Social Action, Vol. 2. Free Press, Weber, NY.
    • Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
    • Pfeffer, J., G. R. Salancik. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row, New York.
    • Podolny, J. M. 1994. Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39(3) 458-483.
    • Powell, W. W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. B. M. Staw, L. L. Cummings, eds. Research in Organization Behavior, Vol. 12. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 295-336.
    • Powell, W. W. 1998. Learning from collaboration. Knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Calif. Management Rev. 40(3) 228-240.
    • Powell, W. W., K. W. Koput, L. Smith-Doerr. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(1) 116-145.
    • Powell, W., D. White, K. Koput, J. Owen-Smith. 2005. Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. Amer. J. Sociol. 110(4) 1132-1205.
    • Pye, M. 2001. Autosport directory 2001. Autosport, http://www .autosport.com/directory/.
    • Reagans, R., B. McEvily. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2) 240-267.
    • Ring, P. S., A. H. van de Ven. 1992. Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management J. 13(7) 483-498.
    • Rosenkopf, L., G. Padula. 2008. Investigating the microstructure of network evolution: Alliance formation in the mobile communications industry. Organ. Sci. 19(5) 669-687.
    • Rowley, T. J., D. Behrens, D. Krackhardt. 2000. Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management J. 21(3) 369-386.
    • Salancik, G. R. 1995. WANTED: A good network theory of organization. Admin. Sci. Quart. 40(2) 345-349.
    • Seabright, M., D. Levinthal, M. Fichman. 1992. The role of individual attachments in interorganizational relationships. Acad. Management J. 35(1) 122-160.
    • Shipilov, A. V., S. X. Li. 2012. The missing link: The effect of customers on the formation of relationships among producers in the multiplex triads. Organ. Sci. 23(2) 472-491.
    • Sorenson, O., T. E. Stuart. 2001. Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venture capital investments. Amer. J. Sociol. 106(6) 1546-1588.
    • Sorenson, O., T. E. Stuart. 2008. Bringing the context back in: Settings and the search for syndicate partners in venture capital investment networks. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(2) 266-294.
    • Starkey, K., C. Barnatt, S. Tempest. 2000. Beyond networks and hierarchies: Latent organizations in the U.K. television industry. Organ. Sci. 11(3) 299-305.
    • Steier, L., R. Greenwood. 2000. Entrepreneurship and the evolution of angel financial networks. Organ. Stud. 21(1) 163-192.
    • Strauss, A., J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
    • Todeva, E. 2006. Business Networks: Strategy and Structure. Routledge, London.
    • Tsai, W., S. Ghoshal. 1998. Social capital and value creation: An empirical study of intrafirm networks. Acad. Management J. 41(4) 464-476.
    • Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 61(4) 674-698.
    • Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1) 35-67.
    • Uzzi, B. 1999. Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 64(August) 481-505.
    • Uzzi, B., J. J. Gillespie. 2002. Knowledge spillover in corporate financing networks: Embeddedness and the firm's debt performance. Strategic Management J. 23(7) 595-618.
    • Watts, D. J., S. H. Strogatz. 1998. Collective dynamics of “smallworld” networks. Nature 393(6684) 440-442.
    • Weick, K. E. 1976. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Admin. Sci. Quart. 21(1) 1-19.
    • Williamson, O. E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Free Press, New York.
    • Zaheer, A., G. Soda. 2009. Network evolution: The origins of structural holes. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(1) 1-31.
    • Zahra, S. A., R. D. Ireland, M. A. Hitt. 2000. International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning and performance. Acad. Management J. 43(5) 925-950.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article