1. Social networks in organizations: an overview
Networks in organizational research (Borgatti & Foster 2003): definitions
● Network: a set of actors connected by a set of ties.
● The actors (nodes) can be persons, teams, organizations, concepts, etc.
● Ties connect pairs of actors and can be directed (poteopenntially one-directional, as
in giving advice to someone) or undirected (as in being physically proximate)
● Ties can be dichotomous (present or absent, as in whether two people are friends or
not) valued (measured on a scale, as in strength of friendship)
● A set of ties of a given type (such as friendship ties) constitutes a binary social
relation, and each relation defines a different network (the friendship network is
distinct from the advice network, although empirically they might be correlated).
● Different kinds of ties are typically assumed to function differently: for example,
centrality in the ‘who has conflicts with whom’ network has different implications for
the actor than centrality in the ‘who trusts whom’ network.
● When we focus our attention on a single focal actor, we call that actor “ego” and call
the set of nodes that ego has ties with “alters.”
● The ensemble of ego, his alters, and all ties among these (including those to ego) is
called an ego-network.
Realist and nominalist (Borgatti & Halgin 2011)
● Realist: “true” network out there which a researcher can discover. Het is er en je kan
het zien zoals het schema van het bedrijf.
● Nominalist: every network question (who are you friends with?) generates its own
network. Het is er pas als je er naar gaat vragen. Als je elke maand vraagt met wie je
bevriend bent, noem je waarschijnlijk steeds andere mensen op, met wie je op dat
moment veel praat bijvoorbeeld.
Types of ties (Borgatti & Halgin 2011)
Strength of weak ties (Granovetter, also lecture 8)
● The stronger the tie between two people, the more likely their social worlds will
overlap, that they will have ties with the same third parties
, ● Bridging ties are a potential source of novel ideas. A bridging tie is a tie that links a
person to someone who is not connected to his or her other friends.
● Strong ties are unlikely to be the sources of novel information.
Structural holes (Burt, also lecture 6)
● G is een bridging tie voor A, waardoor A meer nieuwe informatie ontvangt dan B.
● A heeft 3 structural holes. Meer kans dan B om nieuwe informatie te verkrijgen.
Networks in organizational research (Borgatti & Foster 2003): major research streams
● Structural capital: Zoals het schema, hoe ben je zover gekomen dat je iets bereikt
● Environmental shaping: Groepsdruk, als je alleen maar met dezelfde mensen omgaat
heb je de neiging dat je hun na moet doen / volgen.
● Social access to resources: praten / communiceren met elkaar
● Contagion: Kijken wie er rookt, en over twee weken kijken of er meer bij zijn
gekomen
2. Embeddedness in organizational networks: knowledge and collaboration
Definition
● Social embeddedness is defined as the degree to which commercial transactions
take place through social relations and networks of relations that use exchange
protocols associated with social, noncommercial attachments” (Uzzi, 1997: 482)
● People are embedded in networks. The more people are connected in the network –
e.g. the more central they are – the more embedded they are.
,Why does embeddedness matter?
● Research on embeddedness shows how the social structure affects (economic)
outcomes
● Organizations are embedded in markets
● Embeddedness research also looked at entrepreneurs, organizational change,
acquisitions, and other processes
● The market logic as rational choice theory must be (partially) invalid
The paradox of embeddedness (Uzzi, 1997)
● ‘The same processes by which embeddedness creates a requisite fit with the current
environment can paradoxically reduce an organization’s ability to adapt.’
○ Exit of a core network player (resource dependency)
○ Institutional forces rationalize markets (system change)
○ Overembeddedness (no new information)
● Embeddedness can enable and constrain
The Toyota case (Dyer & Nobeka, 2000)
● Network-level knowledge-sharing processes at least partially explain the relative
productivity advantages enjoyed by Toyota and its suppliers
● Suppliers learn more quickly after participating in Toyota’s knowledge-sharing
network
● Solved three fundamental dilemmas with regard to knowledge sharing:
○ motivate members to participate and openly share valuable knowledge (while
preventing undesirable spillovers to competitors)
○ prevent free riders
, ○ reduce the costs associated with finding and accessing different types of
valuable knowledge
● Through:
○ strong network identity with rules for participation and entry into the
network
○ where production knowledge is viewed as the property of the network
Networks in organizational research (Borgatti & Foster 2003): definitions
● Network: a set of actors connected by a set of ties.
● The actors (nodes) can be persons, teams, organizations, concepts, etc.
● Ties connect pairs of actors and can be directed (poteopenntially one-directional, as
in giving advice to someone) or undirected (as in being physically proximate)
● Ties can be dichotomous (present or absent, as in whether two people are friends or
not) valued (measured on a scale, as in strength of friendship)
● A set of ties of a given type (such as friendship ties) constitutes a binary social
relation, and each relation defines a different network (the friendship network is
distinct from the advice network, although empirically they might be correlated).
● Different kinds of ties are typically assumed to function differently: for example,
centrality in the ‘who has conflicts with whom’ network has different implications for
the actor than centrality in the ‘who trusts whom’ network.
● When we focus our attention on a single focal actor, we call that actor “ego” and call
the set of nodes that ego has ties with “alters.”
● The ensemble of ego, his alters, and all ties among these (including those to ego) is
called an ego-network.
Realist and nominalist (Borgatti & Halgin 2011)
● Realist: “true” network out there which a researcher can discover. Het is er en je kan
het zien zoals het schema van het bedrijf.
● Nominalist: every network question (who are you friends with?) generates its own
network. Het is er pas als je er naar gaat vragen. Als je elke maand vraagt met wie je
bevriend bent, noem je waarschijnlijk steeds andere mensen op, met wie je op dat
moment veel praat bijvoorbeeld.
Types of ties (Borgatti & Halgin 2011)
Strength of weak ties (Granovetter, also lecture 8)
● The stronger the tie between two people, the more likely their social worlds will
overlap, that they will have ties with the same third parties
, ● Bridging ties are a potential source of novel ideas. A bridging tie is a tie that links a
person to someone who is not connected to his or her other friends.
● Strong ties are unlikely to be the sources of novel information.
Structural holes (Burt, also lecture 6)
● G is een bridging tie voor A, waardoor A meer nieuwe informatie ontvangt dan B.
● A heeft 3 structural holes. Meer kans dan B om nieuwe informatie te verkrijgen.
Networks in organizational research (Borgatti & Foster 2003): major research streams
● Structural capital: Zoals het schema, hoe ben je zover gekomen dat je iets bereikt
● Environmental shaping: Groepsdruk, als je alleen maar met dezelfde mensen omgaat
heb je de neiging dat je hun na moet doen / volgen.
● Social access to resources: praten / communiceren met elkaar
● Contagion: Kijken wie er rookt, en over twee weken kijken of er meer bij zijn
gekomen
2. Embeddedness in organizational networks: knowledge and collaboration
Definition
● Social embeddedness is defined as the degree to which commercial transactions
take place through social relations and networks of relations that use exchange
protocols associated with social, noncommercial attachments” (Uzzi, 1997: 482)
● People are embedded in networks. The more people are connected in the network –
e.g. the more central they are – the more embedded they are.
,Why does embeddedness matter?
● Research on embeddedness shows how the social structure affects (economic)
outcomes
● Organizations are embedded in markets
● Embeddedness research also looked at entrepreneurs, organizational change,
acquisitions, and other processes
● The market logic as rational choice theory must be (partially) invalid
The paradox of embeddedness (Uzzi, 1997)
● ‘The same processes by which embeddedness creates a requisite fit with the current
environment can paradoxically reduce an organization’s ability to adapt.’
○ Exit of a core network player (resource dependency)
○ Institutional forces rationalize markets (system change)
○ Overembeddedness (no new information)
● Embeddedness can enable and constrain
The Toyota case (Dyer & Nobeka, 2000)
● Network-level knowledge-sharing processes at least partially explain the relative
productivity advantages enjoyed by Toyota and its suppliers
● Suppliers learn more quickly after participating in Toyota’s knowledge-sharing
network
● Solved three fundamental dilemmas with regard to knowledge sharing:
○ motivate members to participate and openly share valuable knowledge (while
preventing undesirable spillovers to competitors)
○ prevent free riders
, ○ reduce the costs associated with finding and accessing different types of
valuable knowledge
● Through:
○ strong network identity with rules for participation and entry into the
network
○ where production knowledge is viewed as the property of the network
