Contemporary perspectives on organizational social networks

CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIAL NETWORKS RESEARCH IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONS Series Editor: Michael Lounsbury Recent Volumes: Volume 25: The Sociology of Entrepreneurship Volume 26: Studying Difference between Organizations: Comparative Approaches to Organizational Research Volume 27: Institutions and Ideology Volume 28: Stanford’s Organization Theory Renaissance, 1970À2000 Volume 29: Technology and Organization: Essays in Honour of Joan Woodward Volume 30A: Markets on Trial: The Economic Sociology of the US Financial Crisis: Part A Volume 30B: Markets on Trial: The Economic Sociology of the US Financial Crisis: Part B Volume 31: Categories in Markets: Origins and Evolution Volume 32: Philosophy and Organization Theory Volume 33: Communities and Organizations Volume 34: Rethinking Power in Organizations, Institutions, and Markets Volume 35: Reinventing Hierarchy and Bureaucracy À From the Bureau to Network Organisations Volume 36: The Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice À Looking Forward at Forty Volume 37: Managing ‘Human Resources’ by Exploiting and Exploring People’s Potentials Volume 38: Configurational Theory and Methods in Organizational Research Volume 39A: Institutional Logics in Action, Part A Volume 39B: Institutional Logics in Action, Part B RESEARCH IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONS VOLUME 40 CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIAL NETWORKS EDITED BY DANIEL J BRASS GIUSEPPE (JOE) LABIANCA AJAY MEHRA DANIEL S HALGIN STEPHEN P BORGATTI Department of Management, LINKS Center for Social Network Analysis, Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA United Kingdom À North America À Japan India À Malaysia À China Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2014 Copyright r 2014 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78350-751-1 ISSN: 0733-558X (Series) ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004 Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001 CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS ix ADVISORY BOARD xv SOCIAL NETWORK RESEARCH: CONFUSIONS, CRITICISMS, AND CONTROVERSIES Stephen P Borgatti, Daniel J Brass and Daniel S Halgin THEORY HOW ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY CAN HELP NETWORK THEORIZING: LINKING STRUCTURE AND DYNAMICS VIA CROSS-LEVEL ANALOGIES Omar Lizardo and Melissa Fletcher Pirkey 33 MAKING PIPES, USING PIPES: HOW TIE INITIATION, RECIPROCITY, POSITIVE EMOTIONS, AND REPUTATION CREATE NEW ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIAL CAPITAL Wayne Baker 57 BRINGING AGENCY BACK INTO NETWORK RESEARCH: CONSTRAINED AGENCY AND NETWORK ACTION Ranjay Gulati and Sameer B Srivastava 73 TOWARD A STRATEGIC MULTIPLEXITY PERSPECTIVE ON INTERFIRM NETWORKS Andrew Shipilov and Stan Li 95 v vi CONTENTS IN EITHER MARKET OR HIERARCHY, BUT NOT IN BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY: WHERE STRONG-TIE NETWORKS ARE FOUND IN THE ECONOMY Ezra W Zuckerman 111 BROKERAGE AS A PROCESS: DECOUPLING THIRD PARTY ACTION FROM SOCIAL NETWORK STRUCTURE David Obstfeld, Stephen P Borgatti and Jason Davis 135 EMBEDDED BROKERAGE: HUBS VERSUS LOCALS Ronald S Burt and Jennifer Merluzzi 161 THE POWER OF THE WEAK Martin Gargiulo and Gokhan Ertug 179 COHESION, POWER, AND FRAGMENTATION: SOME THEORETICAL OBSERVATIONS BASED ON A HISTORICAL CASE Mark S Mizruchi 199 AFFECT IN ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS Tiziana Casciaro 219 NEGATIVE TIES IN ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS Giuseppe (Joe) Labianca 239 METHODS THE DUALITY OF ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR ATTRIBUTES: TURNING REGRESSION MODELING “INSIDE OUT” Ronald L Breiger and David Melamed 263 A PRELIMINARY LOOK AT ACCURACY IN EGONETS David Krackhardt 277 vii Contents DO YOU KNOW MY FRIEND? ATTENDING TO THE ACCURACY OF EGOCENTERED NETWORK DATA Bill McEvily 295 IMAGINARY WORLDS: USING VISUAL NETWORK SCALES TO CAPTURE PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL NETWORKS Ajay Mehra, Stephen P Borgatti, Scott Soltis, Theresa Floyd, Daniel S Halgin, Brandon Ofem and Virginie Lopez-Kidwell 315 THE TWO-PIPE PROBLEM: ANALYSING AND THEORIZING ABOUT 2-MODE NETWORKS Antoine Vernet, Martin Kilduff and Ammon Salter 337 APPLICATIONS PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION AND PROTOTYPICALITY AS ORIGINS OF KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE NETWORKS Alberto Monti and Giuseppe Soda 357 APPROPRIATENESS AND STRUCTURE IN ORGANIZATIONS: SECONDARY SOCIALIZATION THROUGH DYNAMICS OF ADVICE NETWORKS AND WEAK CULTURE Emmanuel Lazega 381 THE NETWORK DYNAMICS OF SOCIAL STATUS: PROBLEMS AND POSSIBILITIES Alessandro Lomi and Vanina J Torlo´ 403 CORPORATE SOCIAL CAPITAL IN CHINESE GUANXI CULTURE Yanjie Bian and Lei Zhang 421 viii CONTENTS THE CAUSAL STATUS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL IN LABOR MARKETS Roberto M Fernandez and Roman V Galperin 445 ONLINE COMMUNITIES: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOCIAL NETWORK RESEARCH Peter Groenewegen and Christine Moser 463 NETWORKING SCHOLARS IN A NETWORKED ORGANIZATION Barry Wellman, Dimitrina Dimitrova, Zack Hayat, Guang Ying Mo and Lilia Smale 479 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Wayne Baker Stephen M Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Yanjie Bian University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China Stephen P Borgatti Department of Management, LINKS Center for Social Network Analysis, Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA Daniel J Brass Department of Management, LINKS Center for Social Network Analysis, Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA Ronald L Breiger School of Sociology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Ronald S Burt Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Tiziana Casciaro Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Jason Davis INSEAD Strategy Area, Fontainebleau, France Dimitrina Dimitrova Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ix Networking Scholars in a Networked Organization 483 Digital collaborative tools and communication technologies have fostered a continuing increase in the number of papers coauthored within and across disciplines and geographic areas (Hey & Trefethen, 2008; Olson et al., 2008; Shrum et al., 2007; Wagner & Leyesdorff, 2005) Yet, communicating across distance is problematic even when technology is ubiquitous Using digital media instead of in-person contact can increase misunderstanding, slow down communication, decrease participants’ adaptation to other cultures, and hinder trust (Bos et al., 2008; Dimitrova, Koku, Wellman, & White, 2007; Olson & Olson, 2003) Not all networks are spontaneous Government and foundation funding have fostered large and complex research enterprises Indeed, the research for this chapter comes from a network funded by the Canadian government Such multi-organizational, multi-disciplinary, and multi-site projects often pool data, share expensive equipment, and link academic, corporate, and government concerns (Cummings & Kiesler, 2005; Galison & Hevly, 1992; Rhoten, 2003) Accomplishing large-scale, complex collaboration in these more formal networks entails organizational issues such as negotiating goals and priorities, providing administrative and technological support, protecting intellectual property, coordinating the different procedures of multiple institutions, internal competition for funding, and disparate levels of funding between disciplines For example, the physical and health sciences are often better funded than the social sciences and humanities (Bos et al., 2008; Rhoten, 2003) There are additional challenges when large research networks are multidisciplinary, as most universities and publishers continue to emphasize disciplinary boundaries (Dimitrova et al., 2007) Researchers from different disciplines lack the common culture, lore, understanding of issues, methodologies, and practices that disciplinary training and professional interaction foster (Cummings & Kiesler, 2005; Dimitrova & Koku, 2009; Olson et al., 2008) For example, social scientists write longer articles with fewer co-authors than physical scientists, and humanists are more apt to write single-authored books Physical scientists rarely know the code of conduct for research involving human subjects that social and health scientists have internalized The unique structural and cultural conditions in each discipline encourage collaborative behavior to a different degree (Birnholtz, 2005) When scientists collaborate with others from different sectors, organizations, communities, and countries, additional challenges may arise from different perspectives regarding what constitutes a research goal, realistic tasks, and task completion time frames (Sonnenwald, 2008) 484 BARRY WELLMAN ET AL THE NAVEL STUDY: IMPLICATIONS FOR NETWORKED ORGANIZATIONS Our case study examines the GRAND scholarly network, part of the Canadian Network of Centres of Excellence (NCE) program to support multi-disciplinary and nation-wide research (http://grand-nce.ca/) In 2010, the Canadian government provided GRAND (Graphics, Animation, and New Media) with $25 million to support a five year program of developing and analyzing new digital media GRAND created a loosely connected network of academics, government, and industry decision-makers and researchers, NGOs, and other stakeholders, only some of whom had previously known each other The decisions of GRAND’s organizers about recruitment and network structure worked to have projects À the basic organizing units of GRAND À contain scholars from different disciplines and universities To get funded, projects must be interdisciplinary and geographically dispersed GRAND researchers’ diverse disciplines, university affiliations, and locations enhance possibilities for boundary-spanning flows (Dimitrova et al., 2011, 2013) Two-thirds of the projects involve three or four disciplines, with disciplines ranging from Computer Science and Engineering to Art and Design, from Information Science and Journalism to Social Sciences and Humanities GRAND researchers work in universities spread across seven provinces, from British Columbia on the west coast to Nova Scotia on the east coast Half (52%) come from Natural Sciences and Engineering; most of the rest (45%) come from the Social Sciences, Humanities, and Art and Design, while a few (3%) come from Health Research On average, project team members come from five universities located in three provinces Our “NAVEL” (Network Assessment and Validation of Effective Leadership) team comprises one of GRAND’s 34 projects We gaze at networks of collaboration and communication among GRAND scholars, using data from our online survey and in-person interviews conducted in 2010 (A follow-up study is underway.) At the stage that we collected the data, GRAND comprised 143 academics: 56 (39%) of them were project leaders holding the title of Principal Network Investigators (PNIs), while 87 (61%) were Collaborating Network Investigators (CNIs) We focus in this chapter on the nature of scholarly relationships and network structure in GRAND (see also Dimitrova et al., 2013) Networking Scholars in a Networked Organization 485 RELATIONSHIPS IN THE NETWORKED ORGANIZATION Knowing, Friendship, and Working With are the most numerous relationships connecting the GRAND network The weakest type of relationship, Knowing another GRAND member, is the most common Members of professional communities such as GRAND often know many others because they meet at conferences, exchange graduate students, or collaborate on grant proposals In addition to such common foci of interaction, GRAND members know each other because they were recruited in a snowball process that is common in research networks: the core group of researchers invited their long-term collaborators who, in turn, invited their own collaborators (Dimitrova & Koku, 2009; Dimitrova et al., 2007) Friendship and Working With are the next most numerous relationships À and operationally more important Working with someone is the official reason for the existence of GRAND, and in professional networks, friends and collaborators often coincide Less numerous relationships are Gave Advice, Received Advice, Gave Networking Help, Received Networking Help, and Coauthoring Note that we report here on GRAND at an early stage We expect that as in other networks we have studied, working together and friendship will eventually lead to more collaborative advice, help, and coauthorship relationships Indeed, Gave and Received Advice are already the most strongly correlated relationships with each other and with the other relationships (Dimitrova & Koku, 2009, 2010; Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 1998; White, Wellman, & Nazer, 2004) Projects and teams are the basic units of collaboration Not surprisingly, all types of relationships are more numerous within projects than across the entire GRAND network Both work and propinquity come into play The scholars know more collaborators in their projects, and project members often work nearby Moreover, projects are more likely to have scholars linked by multiple relationships For example, Friends exchange more Advice However, few projects are monolithic entities Project members rarely work with everyone in a project Rather, they usually work with teams of three to six: the projects themselves really are networks of teams There is a limit to how much connectivity the researchers have, as scholars often organize their work to maximize independence and minimize coordination (for previous research, see Cummings & Kiesler, 2005; Haythornthwaite, 2003) 486 BARRY WELLMAN ET AL GRAND scholars mostly communicate with their colleagues via email: one-to-one, in small groups, and in larger lists Although many of our students sneer at email as old fashioned, it provides many affordances: flexibility from one-to-one to one-to-many, easy forwarding, exchanging attachments of papers and data, documenting the communication, linking to websites, and above all the advantage of being available to diverse collaborators Despite GRAND members’ digital savvy, they rarely use other media with their colleagues in the network, such as internet phones, mobile phones, or social networking sites In-person contact is almost as frequent as email The high frequency of in-person communication is consistent with previous research suggesting that physical proximity increases the likelihood of communication Furthermore, GRAND scholars report that in-person contact is the most effective way for diverse collaborators to brainstorm or hold complex discussions Other studies report similar results (Bos et al., 2008; Dimitrova & Koku, 2010; Krackhardt, 1994; Olson & Olson, 2003) Moreover, some GRAND projects produce physical prototypes or other tangible artifacts, best dealt with when colleagues are in close proxity GRAND scholars not inhabit separate online and offline worlds The scholars they talk with online are the same they talk with in-person This is consistent with previous research showing that scholars use multiple media to maintain strong scholarly relationships (Haythornthwaite & Wellman, 1998; Rainie & Wellman, 2012) STRUCTURE IN THE NETWORKED ORGANIZATION We wondered if the pattern of relationships in GRAND manifest the characteristics of the networked organization deliberately sought by its leaders though recruitment and design Boundary spanning relationships across organizational, disciplinary, and geographical boundaries are the hallmark of such organizations, together with flat hierarchy and less formalization GRAND has attracted researchers who À in addition to pragmatic considerations of funding and career building À want the intellectual stimulation of diverse collaboration and the benefits of links with the right crowds They report wanting to meet colleagues from other segments of their own disciplines and from other disciplines, discuss research questions, find new methods, connect with senior mentors, and build new paradigms (see also Networking Scholars in a Networked Organization 487 Higgins & Notria, 1999; Mo & Wellman, 2012; Reagans & Zuckerman, 2001) Just as projects connect people, people interconnect projects (Breiger, 1974) The researchers’ motives bode well for the collaboration in GRAND as previous research has found that both intrinsic and extrinsic motives encourage interaction, and that intellectual stimulation provides a stronger incentive for collaboration than economic rewards (Howley, Chaudhuri, Kumar, & Rose´, 2009; Rafaeli & Ariel, 2008) At the early stage of GRAND many members connected within their own disciplines and provinces This is consistent with both other research emphasizing the difficulties of developing cross-disciplinary and dispersed ties (Bos et al., 2008; Cummings & Kielser, 2005; Olson & Olson, 2003), and with Scott Feld’s “focus theory” (1981) contention that institutions such as universities and specialty areas particularly foster conditions for interaction.1 Ties that span intellectual boundaries can aid in the creation and transfer of knowledge GRAND researchers work both within and across disciplines However, at this early stage, the number of cross-disciplinary ties in GRAND is low Where such cross-disciplinary ties exist, they tend to link functionally close disciplines such as Computer Science and Computer Engineering (for a similar finding, see Rhoten, 2003) Thus, there is little collaboration between Computer Science and Engineering, on the one hand, and Social Sciences and Humanities, on the other More than 50 years after C.P Snow (1959) pointed to the separate science and non-science cultures, the difference continues to appear in an avowedly interdisciplinary network that has thought hard about supporting boundary crossing Network analysis shows three patterns Researchers in Computer Science and other high-tech fields work most actively with colleagues in their own disciplines By contrast, researchers in the Social Sciences and Humanities are more apt to collaborate with colleagues outside of their disciplines This may be a result of GRAND comprising a large number of computer scientists Third, the design expertise of those in the Art and Technology discipline fosters bridging between their humanities approach and that of computer scientists More senior scholars link projects PNIs À who are required to participate in at least three projects À connect projects more than CNIs who are usually more junior Participation in multiple projects expands the PNIs’ networks, increases their centrality, places them in bridging positions, and leads to communication advantages (Collins-Dogrul, 2012) Because such higher-level GRAND members bridge inter-group communication across projects, they are able to contact other project members in shorter times and at lower costs 488 BARRY WELLMAN ET AL Thus, the design of GRAND, intended to foster ties across projects and permeability across organizational boundaries, contributes to the hierarchical differences in communication Although the network was designed with few formal hierarchical differences, hierarchy still matters for communication patterns In GRAND, relatively flat authority structures coexist with hierarchical communication structures where the more central scholars have consistent advantages in their communication Paradoxically, fostering one aspect of the non-traditional networked organizations À crossorganizational flows À is associated with fostering another aspect of traditional bureaucratic organizations À hierarchy Such a pattern may mean a trade-off in the structural characteristics of the networked organizations where cross-boundary flows strengthen hierarchal communication Although early discussions about networked organizations had expected them to be non-hierarchical (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986) and decentralized (Baker, 1992), our findings are consistent with research showing hierarchy in them Ahuja and Carley (1999) have shown that networked organizations can exhibit considerable hierarchical and centralization tendencies in their communication structures Krackhardt and Brass (1994) suggest that the most efficient way for a leader to quickly access information and resources is to establish ties with at least one person in each subgroup Hierarchy and formalization can aid large collaborative networks by providing clear, centralized lines of authority, communication, and resource allocation (Rhoten, 2003; Shrum et al., 2007) Collaboration with near-by scholars continues to be the norm An advertisement for an executive MBA asserts: “Distributed teams are the new normal À and whether members are located down the hall or in a different time zone, the challenge remains the same for leaders and managers” (Randall Anthony Communication, 2012) Although GRAND has worked to become a distributed network, at the time of our study, the scholars mostly work with others in the same metropolitan areas and universities, and they tell us that they prefer to work with such nearby folks At the same time, they value the networks they have with other GRAND researchers across the vast expanse of Canada, flying as far as 4,400 kilometers from Halifax to Vancouver to meet collaborators in-person Ties extending outward to other metropolitan areas may increase as the network matures Yet, the predominantly local pattern may not be the sign of undeveloped cross-boundary flows but an integral part of the ways in which networked organizations function, preferring the broader and easier band of in-person contact Work and communication in GRAND are consistent with gloCalization (Wellman & Hampton, 1999) Although networked Networking Scholars in a Networked Organization 489 employees work both locally and globally, they predominantly work locally, just as Quan-Haase and Wellman (2004) found in an earlier study of digital media users NETWORKED WORK IN THE NETWORKED OPERATING SYSTEM Our research shows that reality is more complex than the early deductive expectations for networked organizations The study of GRAND reveals a networked organization in which opposing characteristics co-exist: to some extent it exhibits the cross-boundary flows, relatively flat authority structure, and distant ties expected in a post-bureaucratic networked organization model Yet, it also exhibits the communication hierarchy, within-discipline ties, and spatial concentration of traditional bureaucratic organizations Such a mix of opposing characteristics may be due to the early stage of GRAND we studied However, other studies have found similar mixed patterns in established organizations, suggesting that opposing characteristics may be an integral part of the way networked organizations function Comparing networked organizations with traditional bureaucracies is a helpful first step in their understanding yet it forces networked organizations into a familiar dichotomy of bureaucracyÀpostbureaucracy and precludes the development of a multi-dimensional model The development of such a model can be grounded in the richer theoretical framework of networked individualism The GRAND networked organization exhibits many characteristics of the new social network operating system we call networked individualism The advent of personal computers, mobile phones, and communication networks has changed many workers’ relationships with each other and their relationships to information It is the synergistic coming together of a triple revolution (Rainie & Wellman, 2012) • The social network revolution has provided the opportunities À and stresses À for organizations and workers to reach beyond the world of tight groups • The internet revolution gives organizations and workers communication power and information-gathering capacities that dwarf those of the past In many cases, it has also changed the point of contact from the workgroup to the individual worker 490 BARRY WELLMAN ET AL • The mobile revolution allows organizations and workers to access colleagues and information at will, and at any location In return, colleagues and information are always accessible Key elements of the social network operating system are: Workers function more as connected individuals and less as members of a single bounded work group Digital media have played a special role in networking GRAND The person À the GRAND scholar À has become the unit of connectivity, moving among multiple projects and teams Like other networked workers, the scholars’ social networks are in flux, as teams change in membership and character Such changes mean that developing work relationships or networks is an ongoing process characterized by continuous efforts GRAND researchers often recruit new collaborators to stabilize and improve their position in the network and look for opportunities to communicate with existing collaborators Researchers with the capacity to seek out others, negotiate, and renegotiate relationships have the potential to access additional resources and reduce their personal and professional uncertainties This entails knowing the possibilities and limits of one’s networks and being able to augment them as necessary In GRAND, networking skills are correlated with formal position: PNIs are central because of their greater seniority in their fields and higher positions in GRAND The main consequence of this shift to networked individualism is that while workers’ options increase, their safety net decreases They are more on their own in ways that can be both liberating and taxing In the world of networked individuals, organizations have limited capacity to hinder a person’s ambitions, productivity, or activities At the same time, organizations have limited capacity to act as buffers or safety nets Networked individuals both can maneuver more and need to maneuver more Networked individuals often meet their needs by tapping into diversified, loosely knit networks of many associates or creating such networks from scratch, rather than relying on tight connections to a relatively small number of core associates GRAND requirements for working across project and university boundaries multiply the connections of GRAND scholars to various subgroups The scholars often have partial membership in multiple networks and rely less on permanent memberships in settled groups As bit workers, they are able to sustain more long-distance relationships than in the past, although proximity and in-person contact still matter All this Networking Scholars in a Networked Organization 491 means that they need to work hard to manage their networks and the needs of their work lives Looser and more diverse social networks require more choreography and exertion to manage Digital media permit networked workers to maintain larger, more specialized, and more diversified networks We have often encountered assertions that technology creates social isolation as people communicate via digital media such as email and mobile devices rather than via richer in-person encounters (e.g., Turkle, 2011) They are just the most recent version of continuing assertions that technology will destroy community at home, the neighborhood, and the workplace (reviewed in Rainie & Wellman, 2012) We find a different story Digital media are integral parts of the new workplace, building on, enhancing, and extending in-person project meetings and encounters Digital media help GRAND researchers manage larger, more specialized, and more diversified sets of relationships The preponderance of email communication among GRAND members and their search for new collaborative tools confirm the importance of new communication tools in their work The strong correlation between email and in-person communication among GRAND scholars further suggests that these are not mutually exclusive media Instead, the scholars use both digital media and in-person contact to connect with collaborators Evidence from multiple studies supports our finding Rather than digital media luring people away from in-person contact, larger networks make more use of digital media, overall and per capita (Boase & Wellman, 2006; Rainie & Wellman, 2012; Wellman, Garofalo, & Garofalo, 2009; Wang & Wellman, 2010) Networked individuals often work in teams or peer-to-peer relationships that are less bound up in boss/subordinate hierarchical relationships The multiple involvements of GRAND scholars that cross team, project, disciplinary, and organizational boundaries both expands their purview and increases coordination stresses Their organizational lives are more horizontal and less vertical Yet, hierarchy persists Those in higher positions retain centrality, broader knowledge, decision making, and privileged access to resources GRAND scholars reflect the situation of networked workers who frequently operate in multiple teams rather than working with the same colleagues every day Many of the most networked workers have jobs built around creative effort rather than manufacturing or standardized paper pushing This pushes more autonomy and authority onto individual workers Sometimes this happens within organizations, with people shifting their 492 BARRY WELLMAN ET AL work relationships throughout the week They rely on digital media to obtain and share information and complete tasks For example, a Pew Internet study found that two-fifths (41%) of American workers belong to multiple teams (Madden & Jones, 2008) A study of Intel’s knowledge workers found three-fifths (61%) working in three or more teams, often connecting from home, on the road, and across large distances (Chudoba, Wynn, Lu, & Watson-Manheim, 2005; Lu, Watson-Manheim, Chudoba, & Wynn, 2006) Digital media have made it easier for geographically distributed bit workers to work physically apart Organizational analyst Noshir Contractor observes: “We still have sparse socio-technical knowledge of how potential globally distributed teams and systems of teams are assembled” (2012, p 2) The GRAND study provides some evidence of interplay between local and global work Physical proximity predominates Yet, digital media provides the scholars with enhanced global connectivity with kindred colleagues, including increased visibility, access to specialized GRAND experts, and contact with prestigious senior faculty Yet, it is the scholars’ in-person encounters as collaborators and conference-goers that create and maintain their online contacts Digital media are transforming the work/home balance Many GRAND members work both at their universities and at home They either substitute time at their universities with time at home or extend their work days by bringing work home for nights or weekends For example, we wrote this chapter at our homes, but did proofreading and citation checking at our NetLab office This is a common pattern for bit-workers, who are able to connect to all but the most secure files from work, home, or on the road (Noonan & Glass, 2012) While management experts once thought that much bit-work would move permanently to internet-equipped homes (Gordon, 1987), in reality, home and office works are usually complementary The interpenetration goes in both directions In one direction, workers bring work home from the office to finish off jobs or they may even stay home full or parttime For some, the new media tethers them to their jobs: they can’t just leave work behind when they head out the office door Many feel that time pressures and frequent requests mean they need to complete tasks when they are away from their work places Others, like many GRAND scholars, want to more than they can accomplish at the workplace, and they extend their hours at often more salubrious home environments (Shrum et al., 2007) At the same time, home extends into the workplace: it is easy in many organizations for people to surf the web at work or to use their Networking Scholars in a Networked Organization 493 phones and the internet to communicate with family and friends (Kennedy, Wellman, & Amoroso, 2011) In conclusion, we have argued, and to some extent shown, that studying the GRAND network provides real-world insight into the nature of distributed networked organizations (see also Dimitrova et al., 2013) We believe that such organizations are part of the turn to networked individualism where loosely bounded, sparsely knit, fragmentary networks have supplanted tightly organized groups We have shown that the internet and mobile communication aid this networked operating system, but only in conjunction with physically proximate in-person contact (Rainie & Wellman, 2012) To be sure, the world is not one of pure networked individualism À not even for North Americans Some people continue to live group-centered lives, bounded by their workmates, kin, or neighborhood Yet, the evidence suggests that the shift to networked individualism is widespread and is changing the rules of the game for social, economic, and personal success Networked workers need all kinds of support because they live in a new environment that affects their capacities to deal with one another and with information It is an environment that encourages people to rely more on their social networks to find and assess the most important information and provide key kinds of social support It is based on a digital media ecosystem where the volume and velocity of information and communication are growing dramatically: the places where people can encounter others and information are proliferating; people’s ability to search for and find information is greater than ever; their tools to customize and filter information are more powerful; their ability to reach out to each other is unprecedented; and the ability to create and share information is in many more hands The costs are real: for instance, too much interpersonal connectivity can be burdensome and can aid unwanted government and institutional surveillance (Lyon, 2007) Yet, the benefits for a flexible social organization À and life À are palpable (Rainie & Wellman, 2012; Rainie, Wellman, Beermann, & Hayat, 2012) It is the continuing tension between freedom and flexibility on the one hand and structure and control on the other NOTE We maintain the social network analytic distinction here between single-role relationships, such as Giving Advice, and ties connecting people by one or more role relationships 494 BARRY WELLMAN ET AL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Christian Beermann, Isabella Chiu, Lilia Smale, and Xiaolin Zhuo for their advice and assistance Our research has been supported (at arms-length) by the GRAND network and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada REFERENCES Ahuja, M K., & Carley, K M (1999) Network structure in virtual organizations Organization Science, 10, 741À757 Baker, W (1992) The network organization in theory and practice In N Nohria & R Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations (pp 327À429) Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press Beaver, D., & Rosen, R (1978) Studies in scientific collaboration Scientometrics, 1, 65À84 Birnholtz, J (2005) When researchers collaborate? Toward a model of collaboration propensity in science and engineering research PhD dissertation, University of Michigan Boase, J., & Wellman, B (2006) Personal relationships: On and off the internet In A Vangelisti & D Perlman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp 709À723) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bos, N., Zimmerman, A., Olson, J., Yew, J., Yerkie, J., Dahl, E., & Olson, G (2008) From shared databases to communities of practice: A taxonomy of collaboratories Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 318À338 Boyles, J L., & Rainie, L (2012) Mobile phone problems Pew Internet and American Life Project report, August Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Mobilephone-problems/Main-findings.aspx Breiger, R (1974) The duality of persons and groups Social Forces, 53, 181À190 Cairncross, F (1997) The death of distance Oxford: Oxford University Press Carley, K., & Wendt, K (1991) Electronic mail and scientific communication Knowledge, 12(4), 406À440 Chudoba, K., Wynn, E., Lu, M., & Watson-Manheim, M B (2005) How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality in a global organization Information Systems Journal, 15, 279À306 Collins-Dogrul, J (2012) Tertius iungens brokerage and transnational intersectoral cooperation Organization Studies, 33, 989À1014 Contractor, N (2012, April) Some assembly required Paper presented to the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Anaheim, CA Crane, D (1969) Social structure of a group of scientists: A test of the “Invisible College” hypothesis American Sociological Review, 34, 335À352 Crane, D (1972) Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press Cronin, B (1982) Invisible colleges and information transfer Journal of Documentation, 38, 212À236 Cummings, J., & Kiesler, S (2005) Coordination costs and project outcomes in multiuniversity collaborations Research Policy, 36, 1620À1634 De Sola Price, D (1961) Science since Babylon New Haven, CT: Yale University Press Networking Scholars in a Networked Organization 495 De Sola Price, D., & Beaver, D (1966) Collaboration in an invisible college American Psychologist, 21, 1011À1018 Diderot, D., & d’Alembert, J L R (1751À1772) Encyclope´die, ou Dictionnaire raisonne´ des sciences, des arts et des me´tiers Paris: Academy of Sciences Dimitrova, D., Gruzd, A., Mok, D., Hayat, Z., Mo, G Y., Wellman, B., & Zhuo, X (2013) NAVEL: Studying a networked organization In E Kranakis (Ed.), Advances in network analysis and its applications Berlin: Springer Dimitrova, D., & Koku, E (2009) Research communities in context: Trust, independence and technology in professional communities In D Akoumianakis (Ed.), Virtual community practices and social interactive media: Technology lifecycle and work flow analysis (pp 352À377), Hershey, PA: IGI Global Dimitrova, D., & Koku, E (2010) Managing collaborative research networks: The dual life of a virtual community of practice International Journal of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 2(4), 1À23 Dimitrova, D., Koku, E., Wellman, B., & White, H (2007, May) Who scientists network with? Final report to the Canadian Water Network, National Centre of Excellence Dimitrova, D., Mok, D., Gruzd, A., Mo, G Y., Hayat, Z., & Wellman, B (2011, February) Networked science: Discipline and distance in research collaboration (NAVEL) International Sunbelt Social Network Conference, St Pete Beach, FL Feld, S (1981) The focused organization of social ties American Journal of Sociology, 86, 1015À1035 Florida, R (2012) The rise of the creative class À revisited New York, NY: Basic Books Friedkin, N (1982) Information flows through strong and weak ties in intraorganizational social networks Social Networks, 3, 273À285 Galison, P., & Hevly, B W (1992) Big science: The growth of large-scale research Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press Ginsparg, P (2011) “It was Twenty Years Ago Today…” (rev version) ArXiv: 1108.2700vs cs DL Report, September 13 Gordon, G E (1987) The dilemma of telework: Technology vs tradition In W Korte, S Robinson & W Steinle (Eds.), Telework: Present and future development of a new form of work organization (pp 113À137) Bonn: Elsevier Gresham, J Jr (1994) From invisible college to cyberspace college: Computer conferencing and the transformation of informal scholarly communication networks Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 2(4), 37À52 Haythornthwaite, C (2003) Challenges in the practice and study of distributed, interdisciplinary collaboration GSLIS Technical Report No UIUCLIS_2004/1 + DKRC Retrieved from http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/∼haythorn/hay_challenges.html Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B (1998) Work, friendship and media use for information exchange in a networked organization Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 1101À1114 Hey, T., & Trefethen, A (2008) E-science, cyber-infrastructure, and scholarly communication In G Olson, A Zimmerman & N Bos (Eds.), Scientific collaboration on the internet (pp 15À33) Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Higgins, M., & Notria, N (1999) The sidekick effect: Mentoring relationships and the development of social capital In R Leenders & S Gabbay (Eds.), Corporate social capital and liability (pp 161À79) Norwell, MA: Kluwer Howley, I., Chaudhuri, S., Kumar, R., & Rose´, C P (2009) Motivation and collaboration on-line doi: http://celstec.org/system/_les/_le/conference_proceedings/aeid2009/papers/paper_ 243.pdf 496 BARRY WELLMAN ET AL Kennedy, T., Wellman B., & Amoroso, J (2011) Can you take it with you? Mobility, ICTs and work-life balance In J Katz (Ed.), Mobile communication: Dimensions of social policy (pp 191À210) Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Koku, E., Nazer, N., & Wellman, B (2001) Netting scholars: Online and offline American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 1750À1772 Krackhardt, D (1994) Constraints on the interactive organization as an ideal type In C Hecksher & A Donnellan (Eds.), The post-bureaucratic organization (pp 211À222) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Krackhardt, D., & Brass, D (1994) Intraorganizational networks: The micro side In S Wasserman & J Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in the social and behavioral sciences from social network analysis (pp 209–230) Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Krebs, V (2007) Managing the 21st century organization Institute of Human Resources and Information Management, 11(4), 2À8 LeRoy Ladurie, E (1997) The beggar and the professor A sixteenth-century family saga Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press Lonely Scholar Salon (2012) Vancouver: Gifted education & counseling Retrieved from http://conversatorium.org/uncategorized/lonely-scholar-salon Lu, M., Watson-Manheim, M B., Chudoba, K., & Wynn, E (2006) How does virtuality affect team performance in a global organization? Understanding the impact of variety of practices Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 9, 4À23 Lyon, D (2007) Surveillance studies Cambridge: Polity Madden, M., & Jones, S (2008, September) Networked workers Pew Internet and American Life project, Washington, DC Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/ Networked-Workers/4-Internet-and-Email-Use-for-Work/10-Americans-juggle-work-andemail-accounts.aspx Marshall, J (1990) The castle’s keep: The Villa Serbelloni in history Bellagio, Italy: Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center for Study and Conferences Mitchell, W J (1995) City of bits Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Mo, G Y., & Wellman, B (2012) Understanding sequencing in social network communication Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique, 114, 76À87 Mullins, N C (1972) The development of a scientific specialty: The phage group and the origins of molecular biology Minerva, 10, 51À82 Negroponte, N (1995) Being digital New York, NY: Random House Vintage Noonan, M., & Glass, J (2012) The hard truth about telecommuting Monthly Labor Review, 135(6), 38À45 Olson, G., & Olson, J (2003) Mitigating the effects of distance on collaborative intellectual work Economic Innovation and New Technologies, 12, 27À42 Olson, G., Zimmerman, A., & Bos, N (Eds.) (2008) Scientific collaboration on the internet Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Pears, I (1997) An instance of the fingerpost London: Jonathan Cape Quan-Haase, A., & Wellman, B (2004) Groups and networks: Local virtuality in a high-tech networked organization Analyse & Kritik, 26, 241 Rafaeli, S., & Ariel, Y (2008) Online motivational factors: Incentives for participation and contribution in Wikipedia In A Barak (Ed.), Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications (pp 243À267) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Rainie, L., & Wellman, B (2012) Networked: The new social operating system Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Networking Scholars in a Networked Organization 497 Rainie, L., Wellman, B., Beermann, C., & Hayat, Z (2012) The individual in a networked world: Two scenarios The Futurist, JulyÀAugust, 24À27 Retrieved from www.wfs.org Randall Anthony Communication (2012, December) Teamwork [redefined] Report on Business Magazine Unpaginated Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E (2001) Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams Organization Science, 12, 502À517 Rhoten, D (2003) A multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration Final report submitted to the National Science Foundation, Biocomplexity in the Environment (BCS-0129573) Hybrid Vigor Institute, San Francisco, CA Retrieved from http://hybridvigor.org Shrum, W., Genuth, J., & Chompalov, I (2007) Structures of scientific collaboration Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press Snow, C P (1959) The two cultures Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Sonnenwald, D H (2008) Scientific collaboration Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 643À681 Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S (1986) Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication Management Science, 32, 1492À1512 Stephenson, K (2008) The quantum theory of trust: Power, networks and the secret life of organizations New York, NY: Prentice Hall Tilly, C (1968, November) Personal communication to Barry Wellman, Toronto Turkle, S (2011) Alone together New York, NY: Basic Books Wagner, C., & Leyesdorff, L (2005) Mapping the network of global science: Comparing international co-authorships from 1990 to 2000 International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1, 185À208 Wang, H., & Wellman, B (2010) Social connectivity in America: Changes in adult friendship network size from 2002 to 2007 American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 1148À1169 Wellman, B, Garofalo, A., & Garofalo, V (2009) The internet, technology and connectedness Transition, 39, 5À7 Wellman, B., & Hampton, K (1999) Living networked on and offline Contemporary Sociology 28, 6, 648À54 White, D., & McCann, H G (1988) Cities and fights: Material entailment analysis of the eighteenth-century chemical revolution In B Wellman & S D Berkowitz (Eds.), Social structures: A network approach (pp 380À400) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press White, H., Wellman, B., & Nazer, N (2004) Does citation reflect social structure: Longitudinal evidence from the “Globenet” interdisciplinary research group Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 111À126 ... Greenwich, London, UK Antoine Vernet Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, UK xiii List of Contributors Barry Wellman Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto,... Information; Money Social Network Research: Confusions, Criticisms, and Controversies 11 ties studied in social network research Social relations include such things as kinship relations (e.g.,... COHESION, POWER, AND FRAGMENTATION: SOME THEORETICAL OBSERVATIONS BASED ON A HISTORICAL CASE Mark S Mizruchi 199 AFFECT IN ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS Tiziana Casciaro 219 NEGATIVE TIES IN ORGANIZATIONAL