No abstract

Research for this paper was partially supported by research grants from Boston College and the Boston CollegeCarroll School of Management. The authors would like to thank Barbara Davidson for her research assistance. The authors are indebted to Martin Kilduff, Ron Rice, several anonymous ASQ reviewers, ASQ Associate Editor Reed Nelson, and ASQ Managing Editor Linda Johanson for their insightful advice and comments.This study uses social movement concepts to explain the success and failure of actors in a network of relationships trying to influence policies on environmental issues in a small city. Results show that strategies to take action and mobilize others in a network of interorganizational relationships can vary depending on the social context, which consists of the political opportunity structure defined by government regulators, whether the actor faces opposition, and the actor's position in the network. Decisions to engage in strategies to try to influence government regulators directly, to use a broker to reach agreements with the opposition, or to form a coalition with actors in other organizations to influence government decision makers are affected by this social context. Results also show that even peripheral actors, usually assumed to be powerless in network studies, can influence policy if they use a direct-contact strategy and the political opportunity structure is favorable.0 Increasingly, studying networks has become an accepted way of understanding organizational life. Researchers have studied the networks of actors in the informal structure within organizations and have found, among other things, that connections to others in networks have effects on turnover (Krackhardt and Porter, 1985), power (Brass, 1984), and the adoption of innovations (Burkhardt and Brass, 1990). The network perspective has also been used to study relationships between organizations. We have become aware that economic relationships between organizations are embedded in networks of social relationships (Granovetter, 1985; Uzzi, 1997), many organizational activities now take place in joint ventures and alliances (Miles and Snow, 1986; Jones, Hesterly, and Borgatti, 1997), communities take action through interorganizational networks (Laumann, Galaskiewicz, and Marsden, 1978; Galaskiewicz, 1989), and public policies at the local (Laumann and Pappi, 1976) and the national levels (Laumann and Knoke, 1989) are negotiated through interorganizational networks of businesses, government agencies, interest groups, and lobbyists. Nevertheless, research on networks has, by and large, failed to connect the actions of individuals to their network position (Galaskiewicz, 1985;Emirbayer and Goodwin, 1994). Although a number of studies have established that a central network position for an individual or an organization is correlated with influence in a network of relationships (e.g., Brass, 1984), we do not know how these centrally located people use or do not use their influence in social situations. We do not know the strategies of act...

The work reentry period following the birth of a first child is a time of uncertainty for a professional woman. During reentry, a new mother is often questioning who she is and how effective she can be as a mother and working professional. In this study, we conceptualize reentry as a period of resocialization as we explore the first‐time mother's changing self‐concept during this time. Specifically, we develop a model that explores the identity and efficacy uncertainties that women experience during resocialization. This model draws attention to the influence organizational context has on the degree of uncertainty women experience and to the adjustment tactics women engage to manage their identity and efficacy uncertainty. We discuss the implications these findings have for both socialization research and work‐life theory and practice. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

No abstract

Through a case study analysis, this article explores the processes that guide organizational members' sensemaking around a departmental restructuring. Symbolic processes prove to play a critical role in reestablishing understanding even when organizational leaders are not explicitly directing these symbolic processes. This article demonstrates that because of their influence on sensemaking, undirected symbolic processes can hinder effective organizational change. To successfully manage organizational change, leaders need to more actively manage these intangible aspects of the change process.