How Do Brokers Broker? Tertius Gaudens, Tertius Iungens, and the Temporality of Structural Holes

Abstract

Organizational network research has demonstrated that multiple benefits accrue to people occupying brokerage positions. However, the extant literature offers scant evidence of the process postulated to drive such benefits (information brokerage) and therefore leaves unaddressed the question of how brokers broker. We address this gap by examining the information-brokerage interactions in which actors engage. We argue that the information-brokerage strategies of brokers differ in three critical ways from those of actors embedded in denser network positions. First, brokers more often broker information via short-term interactions with colleagues outside their network of long-term relationships, a process we label “unembedded brokerage.” Second, when they engage in unembedded brokerage, brokers are more likely than are actors in dense network positions to intermediate the flow of information between the brokered parties, consistent with a tertius gaudens strategy. Conversely, and third, when they broker information via their network of long-term ties (embedded brokerage), brokers are more likely than are densely connected actors to facilitate a direct information exchange between the brokered parties, consistent with a tertius iungens strategy. Using a relational event model, we find support for our arguments in an empirical analysis of email communications among employees in a medium-sized, knowledge-intensive organization, as well as in a replication study. The theory and evidence we present advance a novel, temporal perspective on how brokers broker, which reconciles structural and process views of network brokerage. Our findings substantiate the notion of brokers as a dynamic force driving change in organizational networks, and they help to integrate within a unitary explanatory framework tertius iungens and tertius gaudens views of brokerage.

Interactions, Actors, and Time: Dynamic Network Actor Models for Relational Events

“…We believe that this is a good time for proposing a new method to enrich the toolbox of social scientists for the analysis of network data, given the constantly growing interest in analyzing relational events over the past decade. Recent examples include the study of communicational dynamics of animals (Tranmer et al 2015) and emergency responders (Butts 2008), brokerage and receiver choice in communication networks (Quintane and Carnabuci 2016;Stadtfeld, Geyer-Schulz, and Allmendinger 2011), e-mail communication in organizations (Perry and Wolfe 2013), interaction within teams (Leenders, Contractor, and DeChurch 2016), exchange of patients between hospitals (Kitts et al 2017;Vu et al 2017), and collaboration on online platforms (Vu et al 2011). Further, international conflict relations were analyzed in a relational event framework (Lerner et al 2013).…”

Chinese Entrepreneurs, Social Networks, andGuanxi

“…Productive relations can show high decay or churn (Burt, 2005: 196ff. ;Quintane & Carnabuci, 2017), relations allowed to fall into remission can be productively reanimated (Levin, Walter, & Murnighan, 2011), and advantage can depend on networks oscillating between closed and open (Burt & Merluzzi, 2016). Is the presumed stability of core guanxi a characteristic of the networks around Chinese entrepreneurs, or is it an unexamined functionalist assumption (as was common in early network analysis, see Burt & Merluzzi, 2016)?…”

Brokerage and Brokering: An Integrative Review and Organizing Framework for Third Party Influence

“…Here, we aim to review and integrate the thriving literature on brokerage with emerging insights and findings on brokering processes. Multiple research teams have made important strides in recent years toward a deeper understanding of how brokering happens (Kaplan, Milde, & Cowan, 2017;Lingo & O'Mahony, 2010;Obstfeld, 2017;Quintane & Carnabuci, 2016). To integrate research on brokerage and brokering, we followed recent recommendations (Aguinis, Ramani, & Alabduljader, 2018), and engaged in an iterative process to define the scope of the current review and identify relevant content by searching relevant databases, seeking advice from scholars with pertinent expertise, and conducting back searches for referenced work.…”