Structural Logic of Intraorganizational Networks

Abstract

In this study we examine the structural logic underlying complex intraorganizational networks. Drawing on different propositions about structural regularities in networks and using a comparative case study, we empirically investigate the structural logic of collaborative networks for the strategic decision process in two German corporations. In both organizations, data were gathered on cooperative relationships between all managers belonging to the top two management levels. We model structural regularities at the dyadic and the extradyadic level by applying a class of multivariate exponential random graph models. Our findings contribute to the existing literature in three ways: (1) Although networks are particularly likely to exhibit some types of structural regularities (e.g., reciprocity and transitivity), there are other relational forms such as cycles that seem to be of limited relevance. (2) Structural regularities are not limited to a single type of relation but may comprise instrumental and affective relational ties simultaneously. (3) An organization's formal cooperation structure has surprisingly limited influence on the structural patterns of cooperation, whereas friendship ties are embedded in managers' regular interaction patterns in many different ways.

Informal Managerial Networks and Formal Firm Alliances

“…Past research has emphasized the existence of trust developed at the interpersonal level as a precondition for organizational-level trust (Gulati and Sytch 2008;Zaheer et al 1998) and inter-organizational ties (Ring and van de Ven 1994) to occur. As exchanging advice contains an affective component and comprises feelings of closeness and trust between the involved individuals (McGrath et al 2003;Rank et al 2010) advice ties between managers might be especially likely to lead to alliances at the organizational level and hence give rise to cross-level closure.…”

“…ERGMs were proposed by Frank and Strauss (1986) and Wasserman and Pattison (1996) and extended by Snijders et al (2006). Being state-of-the-art for the analysis of interdependence structures, applications of ERGMs to questions within the fields of organization and management have become increasingly popular over the last few years (e. g. Brennecke and Rank 2015;Lomi et al 2014;Lomi and Pattison 2006;Rank et al 2010). To describe the structural patterns characterizing an observed network, ERGMs model a stochastic process in which the presence of a particular tie is influenced by the presence or absence of other ties or actor-level attributes.…”

“…In this connection, we demonstrate that network concepts traditionally used to describe the structure of singlelevel networks can be extended to multilevel networks and in their extended form help to explain cross-level organizational phenomena. Thus, we add to research on the structuring principles and regularities of networks (e. g. Ahuja et al 2012;Lomi and Pattison 2006;Rank et al 2010) and highlight that in order to fully understand network emergence at each level a multilevel perspective is necessary.…”

Rich Ties and Innovative Knowledge Transfer within a Firm

“…Networks may thus overlap but remain conceptually separate. Gulati and Puranam, 2009;Rank, Robins and Pattison, 2010). Multiplexity has been related to such issues as the increased intimacy of relationships and increased levels of trust (Burt and Minor, 1983;Soda and Zaheer, 2012), greater temporal stability of relationships (Burt and Minor, 1983;Ibarra, 1995;Rogers and Kincaid, 1981), reduction of uncertainty (Albrecht and Ropp, 1984), higher status (Albrecht and Ropp, 1984), heightened performance (Roberts and O'Reilly, 1979) and better diffusion of information within networks (Burt and Minor, 1983).…”

Understanding Interoperability in Collaborative Network Management: the Case of Metro High School

“…In the beginning of the collaboration, network members need to agree on roles and responsibilities and establish compatible policies and procedures. This requires a great deal of two way communication and interaction to set rules, norms and values for the effective future functioning of the network [28]. Finally, control of information and increase in negotiations is another procedural aspect of IOp that can be measured by the betwenness centrality.…”