Taking Stock of Networks and Organizations: a Multilevel Perspective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Academy of Management Journal 2004, Vol. 47, No. 6, 795–817. TAKING STOCK OF NETWORKS AND ORGANIZATIONS: A MULTILEVEL PERSPECTIVE DANIEL J. BRASS University of Kentucky JOSEPH GALASKIEWICZ University of Arizona HENRICH R. GREVE Norwegian School of Management BI WENPIN TSAI Pennsylvania State University The central argument of network research is that actors are embedded in networks of interconnected social relationships that offer opportunities for and constraints on behavior. We review research on the antecedents and consequences of networks at the interpersonal, interunit, and interorganizational levels of analysis, evaluate recent theoretical and empirical trends, and give directions for future research, highlighting the importance of investigating cross-level network phenomena. A quarter century of social network research in nected relationships that provide opportunities for management journals has resulted in the accumu- and constraints on behavior. This perspective dif- lation of many findings in recent years (see, for fers from traditional perspectives in organizational example, Borgatti and Foster [2003] for a recent studies that examine individual actors in isolation. review). Network studies have appeared regularly The difference is the focus on relations rather than in management journals, contributing to the inves- attributes, on structured patterns of interaction tigation of a wide range of organizational topics rather than isolated individual actors. It is the in- across different levels of analysis (for a discussion tersection of relationships that defines an individ- of the concepts, techniques and measures in net- ual’s centrality in a group, a group’s role in an work analysis, see, for example, Wasserman and organization (White, Boorman, & Breiger, 1976), or Faust [1994]). The purpose of this article is to eval- an organization’s niche in a market (McPherson, uate organizational network research. Where have 1983). we been? What do we know? Where are we going? We define a network as a set of nodes and the set To that end, we take stock of the results of organi- of ties representing some relationship, or lack of zational network research at the interpersonal, in- relationship, between the nodes. We refer to the terunit, and interorganizational levels of analysis, nodes as actors (individuals, work units, or organi- focusing on the antecedents and consequences of zations). The particular content of the relationships networks at each level. We hope to generate future represented by the ties is limited only by a re- research directions by assessing where network searcher’s imagination. Typically studied are stra- scholarship currently is. Network research embraces a distinctive per- tegic alliances and collaborations, flows of informa- spective that focuses on relations among actors, tion (communication), affect (friendship), goods whether they are individuals, work units, or orga- and services (work flow), and influence (advice), nizations. According to the network perspective, and overlapping group memberships such as actors are embedded within networks of intercon- boards of directors. We consider ties that are main- tained over time, thus establishing a relatively sta- ble pattern of network interrelationships. Using this network perspective, organizational The order of authorship is alphabetical, reflecting equal contributions from the four authors. We thank all researchers have been able to explain variance in reviewers and authors who helped make this special such traditional organizational outcomes as indi- research forum possible, and above all we thank Tom Lee vidual satisfaction, performance, and job exit; for his strong support throughout this process. group structure and performance; and organiza- 795 796 Academy of Management Journal December tional innovation and survival. Likewise, research (1977) referred to this process as “homosocial re- has focused on the antecedents of networks. We production.” Thus, an individual’s similarity in re- organize our review around antecedents and con- lation to the modal attributes of an organization (or sequences of networks by levels of analysis. We a group) may determine the extent to which he or begin with the interpersonal level of analysis (in- she is central or integrated in the interpersonal dividual people as actors), then consider interunit network. networks (groups as actors), and follow with the Personality. Many radical structuralists would interorganizational level of analysis (organizations argue that personality is a result of network posi- as actors). In each case, we consider the anteced- tion. However, research indicates that personality ents and consequences, noting what researchers can affect social network patterns. Mehra, Kilduff, know, what they don’t, and future directions for and Brass (2001) found that people in the center of research. the networks they studied scored high on self-mon- itoring, a stable personality characteristic that indicates the extent to which people monitor envi- INTERPERSONAL NETWORKS ronmental cues and modify their behavior to meet external expectations. In a study that appears in Antecedents of Interpersonal Networks this issue, Klein, Lim, Saltz, and Mayer (2004) Actor similarity. Similar people tend to interact found that several personality characteristics with each other. Similarity is thought to ease com- predicted centrality in advice, friendship, and ad- munication, increase the predictability of behavior, versarial networks within teams. In addition, per- and foster trust and reciprocity. A good deal of sonality has been show to be related to accurate research has supported this proposition, and it is a perceptions of networks (Casciaro, 1998). basic assumption in many theories (Blau, 1977; Proximity and organizational structure. The fo- Davis, 1966; Granovetter, 1973; Homans, 1950). cus on actor similarity and personality implies that Similarity has been operationally defined on such interactions within organizations are voluntary. dimensions as age, sex, education, prestige, social However, organizational structure shapes networks class, tenure, and occupation (Carley, 1991; Ibarra, in organizations. Labor is divided, positions are l993; Laumann, 1966; Lazerfield & Merton, 1954; formally differentiated both horizontally (by work McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987; McPherson, flow and task design) and vertically (by hierarchy), Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). For example, Brass and means for coordinating among differentiated (1985a) and Ibarra (1992) found evidence for ho- positions are specified. Formally differentiated po- mophily (interaction with similar others) based on sitions locate individuals and groups in physical gender in organizations, observing two largely seg- space and at particular points in an organizations’s regated networks, one predominately men, the work flow and hierarchy of authority, thereby re- other women, in different settings. Mehra, Kilduff, stricting their opportunity to interact with some and Brass (1998) found that racial minorities were others and facilitating interaction with still others. clustered on the periphery of networks. Also, re- Because it would be difficult for a superior and search on relational and organizational demogra- subordinate directly linked by a formal hierarchy to phy (Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989; Wagner, Pfeffer, & avoid interacting, it would not be surprising for an O’Reilly, 1984) has been based on the homophily “informal” social network to shadow the formal principle; ease of communication and social inte- hierarchy of authority. For example, research has gration have been the assumed mediating variables shown that social networks differ in organic and in these studies. mechanistic organizations (Tichy & Fombrun, Although there is extensive research on homoph- 1979; Shrader, Lincoln, & Hoffman, 1989). In gen- ily in networks, it is often unclear which dimen- eral these results suggest more unrestricted, flexi- sion of “similarity” will be manifest in a given ble interaction in organic organizations than in organizational context. It is important to note that mechanistic organizations. In addition, Lincoln similarity is a relational concept; an individual can and Miller (1979) found that rank was related to only be similar with respect to another individual, centrality in task and friendship networks. Al- and in relation to dissimilar others. That is, inter- though sex and race were related to friendship net- action is influenced by the degree to which an work centrality, Lincoln and Miller’s results em- individual is similar to other individuals relative to phasize the extent to which organizational how similar he or she is to everyone else (Mehra et structure constrains friendship as well as instru- al., 1998). Culture, selection, and socialization pro- mental ties. cesses and reward systems may cause an organiza- Networks are influenced by the work flow re- tion to exhibit a modal similarity pattern. Kanter quirements of organizations as well. Longitudinal 2004 Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, and Tsai 797 studies have found that communication patterns behavior. Attitudes and behaviors change as a re- change when organizations adopt new technologies sult of networks. We now turn our attention to the (Burkhardt & Brass, 1990; Papa, 1990). Recent consequences of interpersonal networks. changes in communication technology, such as Attitude similarity. Theory and research have electronic mail, have generated increased interest also noted that, just as similar