Brokerage as a process: Decoupling third party action from social network structure

Research in the Sociology of Organizations

Volumn 40, Issue , 2014, Pages 135-159

  Obstfeld, David ^a   Borgatti, Stephen P ^b   Davis, Jason ^c  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^c INSEAD   (France)

Author keywords

Brokerage process; Tertius gaudens; Tertius iungens

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901431975     PISSN: 0733558X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1108/S0733-558X(2014)0000040007     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 425-455.
2. Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Aral, S., & Van Alstyne, M. (2011). The diversity-bandwidth tradeoff. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 90-171.
4. Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 329-366.
5. Bandelj, N. (2012). Relational work and economic sociology. Politics & Society, 40, 175-201.
6. Barley, S. R. (1996). Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 404-441.
7. Beckman, C. M., & Haunschild, P. R. (2002). Network learning: The effects of partners' heterogeneity of experience on corporate acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 92-124.
8. Bizzi, L., & Langley, A. (2012). Studying processes in and around networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 224-234.
9. Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 795-817.
10. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339-365.
12. Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345-423.
13. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 349-399.
14. Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15. Burt, R. S. (2010). Neighbor networks: Competitive advantage local and personal. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16. Burt, R. S., Merluzzi, J., & Burrows, G. (2013). Path dependent network advantage: The serial closure hypothesis. Working Paper. Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, IL.
17. Choi, T. Y., & Wu, Z. (2009). Taking the leap from dyads to triads: Buyer-supplier relationships in supply networks. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 15, 263-266.
18. Davis, J. P. (2011). Network agency problems: Reconceptualizing brokerage as a barrier to embedded relationships. Working Paper. MIT Sloan School of Management.
19. Davis, J. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation: Recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 159-201.
20. DiMaggio, P. J. (1992). Nadel's paradox revisited: Relational and cultural aspects of organizational structure. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 118-142). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
21. Fernandez, R., & Gould, J. (1994). A dilemma of state power: Brokerage and influence in the national health policy domain. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1455-1491.
22. Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 443-475.
23. Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19, 105-125.
24. Gargiulo, M., Ertug, G., & Galunic, D. C. (2009). Two faces of control: Network closure and individual performance among knowledge workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 299-333.
25. Gould, J., & Fernandez, R. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89-126.
26. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
27. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 293-317.
28. Hallen, B. (2008). The causes and consequences of the initial network positions of new organizations: From whom do entrepreneurs receive investments? Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 685-718.
29. Hansen, M. T., & Haas, M. R. (2001). Competing for attention in knowledge markets: Electronic document dissemination in a management consulting company. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 1-28.
30. Hargadon, A. (2002). Brokering knowledge: Learning and innovation. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 24, pp. 41-85). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
31. Homans, G. (1950). The human group. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.
32. Kacperczyk, A., Davis, J. P., & Hahl, O. (2011). Knowledge asymmetry in brokerage: Secret network sources of broker's position and power. Working Paper. MIT Sloan School of Management.
33. Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., & Knight, A. P. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 590-621.
34. Krackhardt, D. (1999). The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 16, 183-210.
35. Lizardo, O. (2008). Brokerage is a process not a structure; repeat after me: Brokerage is a process not a .... Posted: January 29, 2008. Retrieved from http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/brokerage-is-a-process-not-a- structure-repeat-after-me-brokerage-is-a-processnot-a/Accessed on January 16, 2013.
36. Long Lingo, E., & O'Mahony, S. (2010). Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 47-81.
37. Marsden, P. V. (1982). Brokerage behavior in restricted exchange networks. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 201-218). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
38. Moliterno, T. P., & Mahony, D. M. (2011). Network theory of organization: A multilevel approach. Journal of Management, 37, 443-467.
39. Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100-130.
40. Obstfeld, D. (2011). Saying more and less of what we know: The social processes of knowledge articulation and innovation. Working Paper. California State Fullerton University, Fullerton, CA.
41. Obstfeld, D. (2012). Creative projects: A less-routine approach toward getting new things done. Organization Science, 23, 1571-1592.
42. Obstfeld, D., & Borgatti, S. (2008). Brokerage is a process, not a structure: A clarification of social network language. Presented at Sunbelt XXVIII, International Sunbelt Social Network Conference, January 22-27, St. Petersburg, FL.
43. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2003). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15, 5-21.
44. Ozcan, P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2008). Origin of portfolios: Network strategy, tie portfolios, and firm performance in new, highly interdependent markets. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 246-279.
45. O'Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007). The emergence of governance in an open source community. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1079-1106.
46. Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. (1993). Robust action and the rise of the Medici. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1259-1319.
47. Pollock, T., Porac, J., & Wade, J. (2004). Constructing deal networks: Brokers as network 'architect' in the U.S. IPO market and other examples. Academy of Management Review, 29, 50-72.
48. Rodan, S., & Galunic, D. C. (2004). More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 541-562.
49. Ryall, M. D., & Sorenson, O. (2007). Brokers and competitive advantage. Management Science, 53, 566-583.
50. Shi, W. S., Markoczy, L., & Dess, G. G. (2009). The role of middle management in the strategy process: Group affiliation, structural holes, and tertius iungens. Journal of Management, 35, 1453-1480.
51. Shipilov, A. V., & Li, S. (2012). The missing link: The effect of customers on the formation of relationships among producers in the multiplex triads. Organization Science, 23, 472-491.
52. Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (K. H. Wolff, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
53. Small, M. (2010). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54. Tushman, M. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 587-605.
55. Vissa, B. (2012). Agency in action: Entrepreneurs' networking style and initiation of economic exchange. Organization Science, 23, 492-510.
56. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
57. Xiao, Z., & Tsui, A. S. (2007). When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 1-31.