Transcript SOC 8311 Basic Social Statistics

INTRA- & INTERORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS
Social network theories of intra- & interorg’l behavior examine
the structural forms and relational contents that connect actors
in complex networks spanning multiple levels of analysis
• Structural form – positions and patterns in networks of relations
between actors in a system
Vertical-hierarchical vs. horizontal structures
Central vs. peripheral positions/roles
Popular stars, hangers-on, isolates
• Relational content – quality of relations: type of ties (toft)
Resource exchanges: financial transactions
Communication: information & advice
Collaboration: joint project participation
Sociometric Origins
Although roots of network analysis lie in the 1920s
(Freeman 1996), Jacob L. Moreno (1934) pioneered
social network application to “psychodrama” therapy.
He used sociomatrices and hand-drawn sociograms
to display children’s likes and dislikes of classmates
in the form of directed graphs (digraphs). Dyadic
relations of ego & alter are primary units of analysis.
Graph theory and matrix algebra are the
foundational methods to represent
multiple networks of relational contents
connecting Q actors in q x q matrices.
Computer programs such as UCINET
identify actor prominence and jointly
occupied positions. Cluster & plotting
programs MDS, Krackplot, Pajek,
Visone create visual displays of the
social distances between actors.
Anthropology & Sociology
In 1950s, social anthropologists at Manchester University extended
sociometric techniques to studies of families, kinship, friendship networks in
urban settings of both advanced and developing societies. John Barnes
applied analytic rigor to concept of “social network.” He saw “the whole of
social life” as “a set of points some of which are joined by lines” to form a
“total network” of relations. The informal sphere of interpersonal relations
was a “partial network” within this total network (Barnes 1954:43).
In 1970s, sociologists at Harvard, Chicago, Toronto & elsewhere applied
finite mathematical, graph theoretic, clustering, and spatial modeling
methods to uncover small group structures and community networks
► Conflict among novice monks in a monastery (White et al 1976)
► Cleavages in urban political networks (Laumann & Pappi 1976)
► Community lost, preserved, or extended? (Wellman 1979)
By 1990s, network analysis had proliferated to organization studies,
business management, public administration, law, and related fields
► Strategic alliance networks (Gulati 1995)
► Self-managed work teams (Barker 1999)
Varieties of Network Centrality
By interacting, employees come to occupy central positions in intraorg’l
communication and exchange networks. A more central location reflects
ego’s demand from others (high prestige as a target of popular choices )
and greater reach (access to information, economic & political resources)
• Degree: high volume of direct contacts regardless of “quality”
• Closeness: rapid access to & influence over others
• Betweenness: mediation of others’ ties (brokerage, s-holes)
Bureaucratic hierarchies are asymmetric authority networks
(legitimate power) based on command-obey & report-to relations
of superiors and subordinates. Betweenness centrality useful to
a Machiavellian “player” who can bridge unconnected others.
Workteams are egalitarian networks based on advice & trust
relationships to build coworker solidarity and boost collective
performance. As in dancing and horseshoes, closeness counts.
Workplace Networks
Centralities in multiplex workplace networks – the authority,
advice, assistance, communication, conflict, enmity, friendship,
trust etc. relations – may explain such individual, group, and org’l
outcomes as job satisfaction, performance, productivity & profit
David Krackhardt (1999) conducted a clique analysis of
the advice and friendship networks among employees of
Silicon Systems, a small high-tech startup company.
A subsequent union drive flip-flopped from pro to anti.
Krackhardt located change-of-heart in friendship crosspressures on Chris. Unable to satisfy the norms of two
opposing cliques, Chris abandoned the union organizing
campaign to supporters who had fewer persuasive ties.
Next slide displays a blockmodel-MDS reanalysis of the social
distances in both networks, consistent with Krackhardt’s story about
the structural cleavages among pro-union employees (Knoke 2001)
Fig 6.6. Social Distances in Advice and Friendship Networks of Silicon Systems (based on
Krackhardt 1999) SOURCE: Knoke Changing Organizations (2001:227)
Forming Interorg’l Relations
At the org’l level of analysis, theories examine interorganizational
relations (IOR). Emergent properties arise when nonunitary collective
actors interact, exchange, bargain, compete, collaborate, conflict, ...
Network theories try to explain origins and consequences of IOR ties
• Requires new theoretical concepts (e.g., governance forms)?
• Are IORs simply the aggregation of individuals’ relations?
• Do organizations have motives & emotions, interests & goals?
EX: Can orgs trust one another, or only people?
• How do persons occupying role of organizational agent behave
differently than when acting as self-interest individuals?
• What cross-level person-organization relations are important?
EX: Org’s ties to employees, shareholders, customers/clients
Strategic Alliances
Between org’l hierarchies & market relations fall several short-lived,
hybrid IOR forms, where two or more orgs jointly occupy positions
Strategic alliance: at least two partner firms that (1) remain
legally independent; (2) share benefits, managerial control over
performance of assigned tasks; (3) make contributions in strategic
areas, e.g., technology or products (Yoshino & Rangan 1995)
Hierarchical Relations
SA governance forms vary in the
types of legal & social mechanisms
to coordinate & safeguard alliance
partners’ resource contributions,
administrative responsibilities,
divide rewards from their
collaboration
(Todeva and Knoke 2003)
--------------------------------------------------------JOINT VENTURES
COOPERATIVES
EQUITY INVESTMENTS
R&D CONSORTIA
STRATEGIC COOP. AGREEMENTS
CARTELS
FRANCHISING
LICENSING
SUBCONTRACTOR NETWORKS
INDUSTRY STANDARDS GROUPS
ACTION SETS
--------------------------------------------------------Market Relations
Where do IOR Come From?
Interorg’l relations originate in combinations of environmental constraints
and endogenous network structures that generate new social-economic
relations intended to acquire control of resources & maximize org’l
performances (profit, R&D innovation, sales, regulatory autonomy)
Gulati & Gargiulo
dynamic model
with endogenous
feedback loop from
present network
structure (past
alliances, common
3rd parties, joint
centralities) to
transform future
alliances:
Relational
Embeddedness
Structural
Embeddedness
Positional
Embeddedness
Structural
Differentiation
Strategic
Interdependence
NETWORK
FORMATION
An Org’l-Field Theory
IOR analyses also focus on explaining macro-structures at the
complete network level, disregarding individual persons or orgs.
Kenis & Knoke (2002) combined
organizational field with network
properties to develop a field-net
explanation of aggregate change
• Communication ties (info exchanges) are the primary IOR, a
necessary prerequisite to future interfirm collaborations
• Changes in the communication network’s formal properties (density,
centralization) alter opportunities for firms to find available partners
• Rates of change vary nonlinearly, initially accelerating with changes
in communication network structures, then slowing with saturation or
ceiling effects
• But, given its heavy longitudinal data demands, how testable is this
so-called “theory”?
Networks Change Alliances
Changes in the formal properties of an organizational field’s
communication network generate nonlinear rates of change in
interorganizational tie-formation rates (e.g., strategic alliances):
DENSITY
RECIPROCITY
TIE CONFIRMATION
CONNECTIVTY
CENTRALIZATION
MULTIPLEXITY
SUBGROUP
COHESION
HIERARCHY
RATE OF STRATEGIC
ALLIANCE FORMATION
References
Barker, James R. 1999. The Discipline of Teamwork: Participation and Concertive Control. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Barnes, John. 1954. “Class and Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish.” Human Relations 7:39-58.
Bott, Elizabeth. 1957. Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms, and External Relationships in
Ordinary Urban Families. London: Tavistock.
Freeman, Linton C. 1996. “Some Antecedents of Social Network Analysis.” Connections 19: 39-42.
Gulati, Ranjay. 1995. “Social Structure and Alliance Formation Patterns: A Longitudinal Analysis.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 40:619-652.
Krackhardt, David. 1999. “Ties That Torture: Simmelian Tie Analysis inOrganizations.” Research in
the Sociology of Organizations 16:183-210.
Laumann, Edward O. and Franz Urban Pappi. 1976. Networks of Collective Action: A Perspective on
Community Influence Systems. New York: Academic Press.
Mitchell, J. Clyde. 1969. Social Networks in Urban Situations: Analyses of Personal Relationships in
Central African Towns. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Moreno, J. L. 1934. Who Shall Survive? Washington: Nervous & Mental Disease Publishing Co.
White, Harrison C., Scott A. Boorman and Ronald L. Breiger. 1976. “Social Structure from Multiple
Networks, I: Blockmodels of Roles and Positions.” American Journal of Sociology 81:730-780.
Wellman, Barry. 1979. “The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers.” American
Journal of Sociology 84:1201-1231.