Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of interest in network research across the physical and social sciences. For social scientists, the theory of networks has been a gold mine, yielding explanations for social phenomena in a wide variety of disciplines from psychology to economics. Here, we review the kinds of things that social scientists have tried to explain using social network analysis and provide a nutshell description of the basic assumptions, goals, and explanatory mechanisms prevalent in the field. We hope to contribute to a dialogue among researchers from across the physical and social sciences who share a common interest in understanding the antecedents and consequences of network phenomena.

No abstract

This article examines how different personality types create and benefit from social networks in organizations. Using data from a 116-member high-technology firm, we tested how self-monitoring orientation and network position related to work performance. First, chameleon-like high self-monitors were more likely than true-to-themselves low self-monitors to occupy central positions in social networks. Second, for high (but not for low) self-monitors, longer service in the organization related to the occupancy of strategically advantageous network positions. Third, self-monitoring and centrality in social networks independently predicted individuals' workplace performance. The results paint a picture of people shaping the networks that constrain and enable performance.

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 management journals has resulted in the accumulation of many findings in recent years (see, for example, Borgatti and Foster [2003] for a recent review). Network studies have appeared regularly in management journals, contributing to the investigation of a wide range of organizational topics across different levels of analysis (for a discussion of the concepts, techniques and measures in network analysis, see, for example, Wasserman and Faust [1994]). The purpose of this article is to evaluate organizational network research. Where have we been? What do we know? Where are we going? To that end, we take stock of the results of organizational network research at the interpersonal, interunit, and interorganizational levels of analysis, focusing on the antecedents and consequences of networks at each level. We hope to generate future research directions by assessing where network scholarship currently is.Network research embraces a distinctive perspective that focuses on relations among actors, whether they are individuals, work units, or organizations. According to the network perspective, actors are embedded within networks of interconnected relationships that provide opportunities for and constraints on behavior. This perspective differs from traditional perspectives in organizational studies that examine individual actors in isolation. The difference is the focus on relations rather than attributes, on structured patterns of interaction rather than isolated individual actors. It is the intersection of relationships that defines an individual's centrality in a group, a group's role in an organization (White, Boorman, & Breiger, 1976), or an organization's niche in a market (McPherson, 1983).We define a network as a set of nodes and the set of ties representing some relationship, or lack of relationship, between the nodes. We refer to the nodes as actors (individuals, work units, or organizations). The particular content of the relationships represented by the ties is limited only by a researcher's imagination. Typically studied are strategic alliances and collaborations, flows of information (communication), affect (friendship), goods and services (work flow), and influence (advice), and overlapping group memberships such as boards of directors. We consider ties that are maintained over time, thus establishing a relatively stable pattern of network interrelationships.Using this network perspective, organizational researchers have been able to explain variance in such traditional organiza...

No abstract

We explore the role of negative relationships in the context of social networks in work organizations. Though network researchers have emphasized the benefits and opportunities derived from positive interpersonal relationships, we examine the social liabilities that can result from negative relationships in order to flesh out the entire "social ledger." We define a negative relationship as an enduring, recurring set of negative judgments, feelings, and behavioral intentions towards another person-one person dislikes another. We identify the factors that lead to negative relationships in the workplace as well as factors that may moderate the relationship between negative relationships and individuals' task and socioemotional outcomes. We argue that these negative relationships may have greater power than positive relationships to explain workplace outcomes. We derive our argument from theory and research on negative asymmetry.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Review.

No abstract