Brokerage as a Process: Decoupling Third Party Action from Social Network Structure

Abstract

We argue for a broadened approach to brokerage by distinguishing between brokerage emphasizing a particular structural pattern in which two otherwise disconnected alters are connected through a third party ("brokerage structure") and the social behavior of third parties ("brokerage process"). We explore a processual view of brokerage by examining three fundamental strategic orientations toward brokerage: conduit, tertius gaudens, and tertius iungens that occur in many different forms and combinations. This processual view is especially relevant in increasingly complex and dynamic environments where brokerage behavior is highly varied, intense, and purposeful, and has theoretical implications for studying multiplexity, heterogeneity, and brokerage intensity AU:2 .

Transcultural Brokerage: The Role of Cosmopolitans in Bridging Structural and Cultural Holes

“…Traditionally, a social networks perspective has focused on brokerage strategies that emerge out of the structural property of the network (Burt, 1992), to the exclusion of culture and agency (Emirbayer & Goodwin, 1994;Gulati & Srivastava, 2014;Obstfeld et al, 2014). We have proposed that culture and agency influence brokerage dynamics and play a crucial role in shaping the type and quality of transnational and global networks.…”

“…We note that although structural holes and cultural holes may be closely intertwined empirically due to the cultural contingency of network structure, these two types of holes are conceptually distinct (Breiger, 2010), with the former denoting a gap in the social fabric and the latter a gap in the cultural fabric. Consequently, the primary mechanisms that facilitate bridging each type of hole are also conceptually distinct (Hedström & Ylikoski, 2010;Obstfeld et al, 2014). Specifically, bridging structural holes is primarily a function of network structure and network position and often involves brief and discrete episodes (Burt, 1992).…”

“…Transcultural brokerage is best described as a set of dynamic processes whereby a broker initiates, influences, manages, or facilitates interactions across cultural boundaries (Obstfeld et al, 2014). These processes reflect a "union strategy" (also called tertius iungens from the Latin verb iungere, to join, unite, or connect) 6 (Obstfeld, 2005;Collins-Dogrul, 2012;Long Lingo & O'Mahony, 2010;Shi, Markoczy, & Dess, 2009) and are common across a wide variety of global interactions and work settings, including creating ties between disconnected organizational units in multinational corporations (Reiche, Harzing, & Maria, 2009), bridging between local and transnational actors (Mato, 2000), knowledge sharing in globally distributed teams (Agterberg, Van Den Hooff, Huysman, & Soekijad, 2010), and facilitating collaboration between individuals working around the globe (Fleming & Waguespack, 2007).…”

“…Our framework further suggests that cosmopolitan disposition has consequences for transcultural brokerage, defined as the behavior by which an actor introduces, influences, manages, or facilitates interactions between other actors across cultural boundaries (Obstfeld, Borgatti, & Davis, 2014). 2 Specifically, we propose that cosmopolitan disposition influences two distinct transcultural brokerage processes: bridging structural holes and bridging cultural holes.…”

“…Our approach is distinctively interdisciplinary (see Cheng, Henisz, Roth, & Swaminathan, 2009), and we draw on the key literature on cosmopolitanism, globalization, and transnational cultures (e.g., Hannerz, 1990;Skrbis & Woodward, 2007), network theory in sociology and organizational studies (e.g., Burt, 1992;Obstfeld et al, 2014), and research on global work (e.g., Hinds et al, 2011;Brannen & Peterson, 2009) and international and human resource management (e.g., McNulty & Hutchings, 2016;Schuler et al, 2011). Based on these research streams, we first propose a model of cosmopolitanism as an embodied disposition.…”