Networks I 2021/2022
Lecturers: Suzanne Verhoog, Bianca Suanet & Hortense Jongen
Lecture 1: 07 februari 2022
Social Networks in Organizations: an Overview
During the course, both in the lectures and in the workgroups, we will discuss how networks
help understand several ‘wicked problems’. The topic of the working groups will be the
wicked problem of loneliness.
Wicked problems are problems that is difficult or impossible to solve because of
incomplete, contradictory and changing requirements that are challenging to
identify
Loneliness, social media, social relationships and privacy on social media for
example
The common theme that connects these different perspectives throughout this
course is the question how networks shape dynamics and inequalities within and
between societies, organizations and individuals
What is a social network? A social network is defined as a set of nodes (social actors such as
individuals, groups or organizations) and ties representing some relationship or absence of a
relationship among the actors.
The pattern of relationships defines actors positions in the social structure and provides
opportunities and constraints that affect the acquisition of power.
- Each relation defines a different network, the friendship network is distinct from the
advice network
- When we focus our attention on a single focal actor, we call that actor ‘ego’, the set of
nodes that the ego has ties with are the ‘alters’
- Actors can be connected via: similarities, social relations, interactions and flows of
resources
Ties can be divided in binary (present or absent), valued (for example by frequency, intensity
or strength of ties, measured on a scale), directed (one-directional, like giving advise) or
undirected (as in being physically proximate).
An event-type tie has a discrete and transitory nature and can be counted over periods of time,
they can be operationalized in terms of frequency and occurrence, interactions or transactions.
State-type ties have continuity over time. This is not to say they are permanent, but rather that
they have an open-ended persistence, they can be operationalized in terms of strength,
intensity and duration. Borgatti en Halgin (2011).
Kinship (like a brother), other role-based ties (boss or friend), cognitive (knows)
and affective (likes or dislikes)
1
,Realist versus the nominalist perspective:
Realist: there is a true network of relationships out there, and our job as researchers is
to discover it, very similar to realist ontology perspective
Nominalist: every network question that we as a researcher ask generates its own
network, this is more a social constructionist perspective (who are you friends with?),
if you ask today who your friends are, it might be different next week
Strength of weak ties (Granovetter, 1973). Close friends versus acquaintances. The stronger
the tie between people, the more likely their social worlds will overlap, that they will have ties
with the same third parties.
People tend to be homophilous, they have stronger ties with people who are similar
to themselves
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 sources of novel information, weak ties are, thus one
can conclude that weak ties are likely to be bridges, because bridges are the source
of novel information
Weak ties can share information with each other that they wouldn’t get from anyone else in
their close group. It is valuable to have a combination of strong and weak ties.
Burt’s SH structural hole theory of social capital is concerned with ‘ego networks’, the power
of the person bridging the hole (ego). While Granovetter is more about the opportunity of this
bridging connections.
Burt argues that some nodes are, because of their ego network, more likely to
receive more nonredundant, useful information at any given time than a node that
does not have a bridging tie
Which can provide the first node with the capability of performing better or being
perceives as the source of new ideas
2
,Networks in organizational research, major research streams: social capital, embeddedness,
network organizations and organizational networks, board interlocks, joint ventures and inter-
firm alliances, knowledge management, social cognition and groups processes.
Typology of research on consequences of network factors, Borgatti and Foster:
The connectionist perspective implies an interpersonal transmission process among
those with pre-existing social ties using micro-mechanisms such as modelling and
congruence
The structuralist view says that two nodes will have similar outcomes because they
occupy structurally similar positions, even if there is no tie connecting them
The formal organogram of an organization shows who is the boss, the informal is the central
nervous system driving the collective through processes, actions and reactions of its business
units.
Mapping advice networks can uncover the source of political conflicts and failure to achieve
strategic objectives. Because these networks show the most influential players in the day-to-
day operations of a company, they are useful to examine when a company is considering
routine changes.
Trust networks often reveal the causes of nonroutine problems such as poor
performance by temporary teams
The communication network can help identify gaps in information flow, the
inefficient use of resources and the failure to generate new ideas
The advice network shows the prominent players in an organization on whom
others depend on to solve problems and provide technical information
Lecture 2: 09 februari 2022
Embeddedness in Organizational Networks: Knowledge, Creativity,
Collaboration
3
, 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, non-commercial attachments.
People are embedded in networks, the more people are connected in the network,
the more embedded they are than when you are situated on the periphery
It is all about the connection between the economic and social world, research
shows how the social structure affects economic outcomes
The embeddedness of firms in regional production network suggest that embedded actors
satisfice rather than maximize on price and shift their focus from the narrow economically
rational goal of winning.
The basic conjecture of this literature is that embeddedness creates economic opportunities
that are difficult to replicate via markets, contracts or vertical integration.
What does this actually mean? You can reach an optimal point of embeddedness.
Organization can profit from embeddedness because it fits better with all the other players in
the market, however, if the organization is too embedded it can reduce the organization’s
ability to adapt.
How does this work? Three mechanisms to explain this paradox:
If the organization is too embedded, the exit of a core network player (resource
dependency) makes the organization very vulnerable for example tightly tied to
another organization which disappears
Institutional forces rationalize markets (system change), as an organization you are
used to a certain environment
Over-embeddedness, same group all the time so there is no new information
A first-order network is made up of an actor’s ties to its exchange partners. A second-order
network is made up of an actor’s exchange partner’s ties to their trading partners.
The best way for an organization to link to its network is by means of embedded ties, which
provide better access to the benefits circulation in the network than arm’s-length ties. Each tie
performs different functions
Embedded ties enrich the network, while arm’s-length ties prevent the complete
insulation of the network from market demands and new possibilities
Embeddedness can enable and constrain
Underembedded arm’s-length network, integrated network (mix of both) and the
overembedded network
The Toyota case. Toyota’s ability to effectively create and manage network-level
knowledge-sharing processes explains the relative productivity advantages enjoyed by Toyota
and its suppliers (Uzzi).
4
