INTRA-

1
INTRA- INTERORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS

• Social network theories of intra- interorgl
  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 Communi
cation information advice Collaboration joint
project participation
2
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 childrens 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.
3
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 195443).
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)
4
Varieties of Network Centrality
By interacting, employees come to occupy central
positions in intraorgl communication and
exchange networks. A more central location
reflects egos 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.
5
Workplace Networks
Centralities in multiplex workplace networks
the authority, advice, assistance, communication,
conflict, enmity, friendship, trust etc.
relations may explain such individual, group,
and orgl 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
cross-pressures 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 Krackhardts story about the
structural cleavages among pro-union employees
(Knoke 2001)
6
Fig 6.6. Social Distances in Advice and
Friendship Networks of Silicon Systems (based on
Krackhardt 1999) SOURCE Knoke Changing
Organizations (2001227)
7
Forming Interorgl Relations
At the orgl 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 Orgs ties to employees,
  shareholders, customers/clients

8
Strategic Alliances
Between orgl 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 ---------------------------
------------------------------ JOINT VENTURES
COOPERATIVES EQUITY INVESTMENTS RD
CONSORTIA STRATEGIC COOP. AGREEMENTS CARTELS FRANC
HISING LICENSING SUBCONTRACTOR NETWORKS INDUSTRY
STANDARDS GROUPS ACTION SETS ---------------------
------------------------------------ Market
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)
9
Where do IOR Come From?
Interorgl relations originate in combinations of
environmental constraints and endogenous network
structures that generate new social-economic
relations intended to acquire control of
resources maximize orgl performances (profit,
RD 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
NETWORKFORMATION
Structural Differentiation
Strategic Interdependence
10
An Orgl-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 networks 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?

11
Networks Change Alliances
Changes in the formal properties of an
organizational fields communication network
generate nonlinear rates of change in
interorganizational tie-formation rates (e.g.,
strategic alliances)
DENSITY
RECIPROCITY
TIE CONFIRMATION
CONNECTIVTY
RATE OF STRATEGIC ALLIANCE FORMATION
CENTRALIZATION
MULTIPLEXITY
SUBGROUP COHESION
HIERARCHY
12
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 739-58. 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
40619-652. Krackhardt, David. 1999. Ties That
Torture Simmelian Tie Analysis inOrganizations.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations
16183-210. 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
81730-780. Wellman, Barry. 1979. The Community
Question The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers.
American Journal of Sociology 841201-1231.