Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Organizational Analysis: Week 10 Questions (Networks 1)

Granovetter

Units of Analysis

• Granovetter's (1973) weak ties argument appears to operate at network level, i.e. between
individuals who act as independent units. What are the implications of the theory on an intra-
organizational basis? Can Granovetter help us understand, for instance, how knowledge
flows are shaped within organizations or how boundary-spanning individuals diffuse
information they gather from the environment? Can the theory shed light, ultimately, on how
organizations learn? (Luciana)

• How and when is it appropriate to take up a level of analysis embededness concepts


emphasizing the "strength of weak ties" from the individual to the firm level? What might be
the additions to the theory that have to be applied at the firm level of analysis? Granovetter
emphasizes the micro-macro link available in an analysis of weak ties, but how can we
specify the differences between macro as an aggregation of individuals versus a collection of
firms? (Elizabeth)

What is the Causal Process?

• on g says that the weakness of the tie is the causal agent. this seems a case of clear
misidentification, and burt identifies the fallacy: "the causal agent in the phenomenon is not
the weakness of a tie but the structure hole it spans. Tie weakness is a correlate, not a cause"
(structural holes, 27). why is SWT still such a strong image and research metaphor? or am i
misperceiving its continuing importance in the field? [vt]

• How is the strength of the tie and the similarity/difference associated? Which one can be
viewed the "cause"? Why is there an assumption that similarity produces stronger tendency
to form a tie? (Phoenix)

Content and Types of Ties

• As Granovetter notes in the conclusion, the limitation of this argument is that it does not
consider the content that flows through ties. Different information might flow through
different network. In organizational studies, there are various sorts of network such as
alliance network, board of director network, and co-membership in industry association
network. It would be interesting to look into how different information flows through
different network. (Gru)

• Do ties differ by tie-type? If I have a weak tie to someone through either 1) college, 2)
my running group, or 3) a person I know from a church I ocassionally attend- are those weak
ties equivalent? I would assume the weak running group would be the strongest weak tie-
since the group is something I engage in currently and do every week… but in reflection,
even the weakest of ties from college seem strong… and does something one is passionate
about- like faith- lead to a feeling of a stronger tie… and does the evaluation of this tie differ
based on the place in which one is located? (ie do I feel that I have a stronger tie to LuLu

1
Organizational Analysis: Week 10 Questions (Networks 1)

when I am standing in my church (even if she isn’t there) than if I am in the mall/at home,
etc.)

Generalizability Today

• Granovetter’s notion of a “forbidden triad” implies the existence of social mechanisms by


which common neighbors become ties, i.e. “if two people in a social network have a friend in
common, then there is an increased likelihood that they will become friends themselves at
some point in the future.” Does this translate to virtual relationships? How does virtuality in
place of “real” interaction affect clustering coefficients? (Matt)

• Granovetter’s (1973) strong-weak tie concept is fascinating. But, written in the early
1970s, he cites research findings from the 1950s and late 1960s that provide empirical
support for the idea that “the stronger the tie connecting two individuals, the more similar
they are, in various ways” (p. 1362). That’s lovely- but the present world looks different
than it did fifty years ago- and different than it ever has before. While it seems obvious that
one would still have something in common with one’s stronger ties (as- at least theoretically-
there has to be something to discuss/do together in order to have achieved the strong tie), this
is not to say that “the stronger the tie… the more similar” the pair. (Mary Carol)

• How does the increasing role of technology affect the relevance of Granovetter's
argument? For example, while Granovetter's strong ties by definition involve spending a lot
of time face-to-face, does the growing importance of other modes of communication change
how we should define strong ties? Does this in turn make the forbidden triad more likely?
(Rebecca)

• Granovetter defines the strength of a tie as a combination of the tie’s amount of time,
emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services. He wrote his paper long before the
rise of social media and online networking. The internet has allowed us to maintain a great
deal of ties, and it has possibly even a contributed to a kind of “tie overload”. Should his
definition or theory be modified in light of recent networking technologies? Do these
technologies affect what we consider a tie? (Aaron)

Uzzi

• One of the interesting topics emerging from all of this week’s readings is about the
inverted U-shaped relationship between network embeddedness and economic achievements.
After some threshold, information flowing through the network gets redundant (Gulati and
Gargiulo), the chances of survival are decreased (Uzzi), and the creativity is weakened (Uzzi
and Spiro). I wonder if this is a general phenomenon existing in all network analysis. How do
the students of network conceptualize this phenomenon? Furthermore, it seems to me that
this inverted U-shape relation should be related to some specific structural properties of
network as network centralization which Gulati and Gargiulo showed. Is it general tendency
that mature network become much centralized? I am also wondering what if Uzzi and

2
Organizational Analysis: Week 10 Questions (Networks 1)

Garguilo used betweenness centrality instead of closeness centrality. It might show different
pictures. (Dong Ju)

• I really enjoyed this week's readings on social networks in organizations. I thought the
general theme is that social networks are important and beneficial, offering a range of
resources such as information, non-redundant ties, new opportunities, and so on. On one
level I find the conclusions novel, since I tend to think of market as governed by
"impersonal" mechanisms such as price, supply, and demand. On another level I don't think
any of the findings are surprising, since I don't think market and network are fundamentally
antagonistic concepts. Uzzi (1996) proposes that "organization networks operate on a logic of
exchange which differs from the logic of markets" (p.676). I think some might argue that the
market is a form of network, and they operate with the same principles. The market is
nothing more than a network, defined by a regular pattern of exchange. What do others think
about the relationship between market and network? Do we agree with Uzzi that they operate
with distinct logic? (Sabrina)

• Uzzi (1996:679) poses that "just as economic transactions are embedded in social
relations, new social relationships are partly reverse-embedded in economic transactions".
How does this effect work in practice? What are its consequences? (Luciana)

• Is the pre-existed network indispensable? Since any network can be viewed as the pre-
existed network for following ones, then is the explanation offered by the author sufficient?
What is starting point of all these networks? (Phoenix)

• While Uzzi (1996) clearly articulates the differences between the embedded versus the
“arms-length” market logic of exchange and the theory for an optimal mix of the two, his
empirical case evidence may be limited. Isn’t the apparel industry known for incestuous
relations and non-market behavior to begin with (sharing some of the same criticisms of
using ethnic enclaves he mentions)? Certainly the apparel industry could not possibly
provide enough evidence to support H1 (p.683) that “competitive production markets will be
characterized by embedded networks of organizations¨. The same is true for some of the
Uzzi’s other study (with Spiro) linking creativity to small world networks, the empirical case
by itself (Broadway) isn’t big enough to support an ambitiously encompassing theory.
(Vince)

Gulati and Gargiulo

• The article by Gulati and Gargiulo brought back memories from our readings on
transaction cost economics, particularly the Powell reading on network forms of
organizations. The authors look at the role of prior mutual alliances in the probability of a
new alliance. But thinking back to Powell, is it appropriate to think of these old and new
alliances as separate events with the former predicting the latter, or are they all part of a
larger ongoing relationship? (Rebecca)

• Gulati & Gargaulo (1999) present highly suggestive findings, but the most important
theoretical dynamic is left unexplored: how an equilibrium point in the formation of

3
Organizational Analysis: Week 10 Questions (Networks 1)

networks is reached due to the stabilization of structural differentiation (which begins to


reduce the level of information in the system if differentiation begins to exceed a certain
threshold). Such a dynamic appears to be the only means for their model to reach
equilibrium? [All the factors, endogenous or exogenous, lead to greater network formation,
which then cycles back to increasing structural differentiation] (Vince)

• g&g note that the usual model of exogenous pressures on network development doesn't
explain how actors decide whom to form ties with and propose that their explanation (of
endogeneous network cues) fills this gap. but it seems to still sidestep the question of the
processes entities use before networks form to form those networks -- before the network
(and embeddedness in the network) exists to give cues on who to form ties with in the
network, what do entities do to form the network in the first place? how does the primordium
coalesce? (and do we need social psychology and goffman/simmel to answer that question?)
[vt]

Uzzi and Spiro

• Uzzi and Spiro theorize that “expectations of reciprocity intensify an actor’s exclusive
involvement with certain others at the cost of forming new ties with persons who have a fresh
artistic view”, and they “suggest that the effect may be parabolic”. (p. 464) What are the
likely mediating effects on parabolic slope of differing cultural norms regarding reciprocity?
Is the small world phenomenon culturally bound or is it universal? (Jennifer)

• In their findings, Uzzi and Spiro explain that “the number of previous collaborators had no
effect on the financial success model but had a negative effect on artistic success” (p.484).
They go on to explain that this counterintuitive result may stem from a loss of depth that
possibly comes in developing “expansive contact networks.” I find this to be a lame
explanation- given the purpose of the paper, expect a more thoughtful response- and wonder
if anyone else has a more “creative” thought. (Mary Carol)

• Does Uzzi and Spiro’s small world creativity theory hold on an individual level? If someone
has an ideal number of connections (ie they are at the top of the parabola), will they be more
creative (and more ________ (other beneficial things related to the small world phenomena?)
OR is it a purely network effect- whereby something having to do with these connections
creates more creativity on the whole, but not necessarily for each individual on average?
(This question is written very poorly.) If something happens on a network level, can we
assume it will happen for the average individual in the network? (Mary Carol)

• Uzzi’s “small world” construct evokes a network of tight clusters connected by short path
lengths, and suggests that performance is parabolically related to “smallworld-ness”. Do we
believe these findings would translate to the intra-organizational context, i.e. organization
design? (Matt)

Generalizability

4
Organizational Analysis: Week 10 Questions (Networks 1)

• While reading Uzzi & Spiro’s work on small worlds, collaboration, and creativity I
started to wonder if certain industries lend themselves to being better small worlds than
others- ie: whereby “an intermediate level of small wordliness produces the most benenficial
small world effect on both financial and artistic [or another dimension that is more intrinsic
to the industry in question] success” (Uzzi & Spiro, p. 488). If so, then are those industries
more “creative” (and other beneficial things related to the small world phenomena?) (Mary
Carol)

• Do you think that the scarcity of network data leads to the development of network-based
explanations that are not highly generalizable? For example: the data for the Uzzi & Spiro
2005 study comes from artists working on Broadway musicals. It is possible that conclusions
drawn from sound analyses done on these data might not apply to other networks simply
because of the uniqueness of the network of artists working on musicals? It seems to me that
non-networks-related hypotheses and theories are much easier to confirm across a variety of
settings (eg. in various industries or organizational fields) just because data to do such testing
is more available (ie it is much easier to find or collect data about individual organizations
rather than find or collect data about the relationships between those same organizations).
(Anshul)

• What effect does virtually frictionless access to potential network nodes, brought about
by the internet, have on the parabolic small world theory? (Jennifer)

• How does industry and organizational culture affect the degree and nature of
embeddedness that can occur? Also, do these variables affect where organizational networks
come from? If so, how? (Aaron)

General Questions and Extensions

• In several class sessions, we have considered the challenge of how does one determine where
the boundaries are around organization vs. environment in the context of institutional
ecology, organizational fields in the context of resource partitioning, and this challenge
seems to extend to networks. Granovetter advocates for creating egocentric networks that
includes contacts of contacts. Is this sufficient? At what level would the information gained
by looking at a more extensive network be offset by the data collection challenges?
(Rebecca)

• Is a “network cluster” the same operational concept as a “community”, or is a “community” a


particular type of network cluster that carries certain additional characteristics (and if so,
what would these be)? (Jennifer)

• Would we characterize the literature on the embededness of economic behavior as more


normative or descriptive? In what ways are these pieces of research sociological accounts of
economic behavior that (implicitly or explicitly) seek to explain economic outcomes better
than economics, or alternatively, in what ways are these pieces of research sociological
accounts of economic phenomena? (Elizabeth)

5
Organizational Analysis: Week 10 Questions (Networks 1)

• How can the network approach to organizations be combined with institutional theory? Are
infused values and routines created by the formation of networks or rather do they lead to the
creation of networks. What relation to cultural processes have to networks? Are
organizational networks on a global level becoming more homogeneous, despite cultural
differences? It seems that the effort to link micro and macrological sociological theory must
begin with more network data and increased sensitivity to how networks relate to broad
cultural processes. (Mazen)

• Can network theories accommodate issues related to cognitive load, or bounded attention?
For example, do ties involving a node with only 10 ties have the same functional importance
as ties involving a node that has 100 ties? Are bridging ties especially hard work to maintain?
(Matt)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai