Transcript Slide 1

Personal and Business Networks
Gerrit Rooks
“no man is an island, entire of itself…” (Donne 1624).
This lecture
• A few tidbits about personal networks
– How many close friends do people have? How
many do you have?
– Which persons have what kinds of networks?
• The evolution of business-networks from
entrepreneurial networks
• The Toyota supplier network
• Alliance networks: direct and indirect ties
Social Brain Hypothesis
• Ronald Dunbar (1947),
anthropologist and
evolutionary biologist,
University of Oxford
• Ronald Dunbar is famous for
the social brain hypothesis:
“human intelligence is the
evolutionary result of the need
for social coordination and
cooperation”
Personal network size
• the number of social
group members a
primate can track,
appears to be
limited by the
volume of the
neocortex region of
their brain.
Dunbar, R.I.M. (1993), Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans,
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (4): 681-735.
Dunbars number: 150
“Social units”
• Support clique: people
who we seek personal
advice from
• Sympathy group:
special ties, frequent
contact
• Band: acquaintances,
less frequent contact
• Clan: all current
contacts
• Megaband + Tribe:
larger social units
Any group greater than 150 will become disfunctional
50,000 +
20,000 to 45,000
10,000 to 15,000
20,000 to 45,000
475-1000
75-200
Company size = 75-200
Organizations > 150 need bureaucracy…
Is Dunbars number still valid in this
new media age?
• Microblogging and online
tools, on the other hand,
might be analogous to a
pocket calculator that, while
speeding up the way we can
do simple math, does not
improve our cognitive
capabilities for
mathematics.
• We find that the data are in
agreement with Dunbar’s
result; users can entertain a
maximum of 100–200 stable
relationships. Thus, the
‘economy of attention’ is
limited in the online world
by cognitive and biological
constraints as predicted by
Dunbar’s theory.
Modeling Users' Activity on Twitter
Networks: Validation of Dunbar's
Number. Goncalves, Perra & Vespigani
Primitive societies and networks
Barry Wellman, 2011. "Is Dunbar's Number
Up?" British Journal of
Psychology 102: in press: DOI:
10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02075.
Feld, Scott L. (1991), "Why your friends
have more friends than you do",
American Journal of Sociology 96 (6):
1464-1477,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781907
That's why the cognitive social
structure work is relevant to this question.
There is evidence that we humans see
networks as more structured than they
actually are (see Koehly & Pattison
in Carrington, Scott and Wasserman, 2005;
also Kumbasar et al, 1994, which they
cite.) Casciaro did some interesting work
on network perception in the 1990s. More
recently, have a look at Igarashi and
Kashima (2011) in the Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, involving
some network perception experimental
manipulations and perceptions of "groupness". If you get down to specific types of
network ties, then Lutz and Lakey and
colleagues have done some interesting
work in regard to social support networks,
about the factors that lead individuals
perceiving that a social support tie is
present.
(Explaining) variation in networks
Kalish & Robbish:
Ego networks and triad census
Strong
tie
Weak
tie
Kalish&Robbish describe and
explain the triad census
Strong
tie
Weak
tie
Transitivity: “the forbidden triad”
= strong tie
= weak tie
Chris
Gerrit
Chris
Uwe
Gerrit
Uwe
The forbidden triad is a building block in
Granovetters strength of weak ties theory
Reasons for transitivity
= strong tie
• Frequent interaction
Chris
• Similarity
Gerrit
Uwe
• Structural balance /
cognitive dissonance
reduction
Only weak ties are bridges
= strong tie
Koen
Chris
Gerrit
Uwe
Bert
Önder
Kalish & Robbish try to explain
network differences
• Do psychological
differences affect
network differences?
• What kind of differences
are important?
Personal and business networks
The organizational life cycle
Hite & Hesterly. The Evolution of Firm Networks: From Emergence to Early Growth of the Firm
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Mar., 2001), pp. 275-286
Social network entrepreneur = firm network
`identity’ based networks
high proportion of ties with some type of
personal or social identification
Pre-existing ties, strong embedded network high
in closure and cohesion
Early / Later growth
Calculative networks
Ties are primarily motivated by expected economic
benefits
Weak ties that are more market like, less redundant
(Partly) result of pro-actively managing networks
From embedded to balanced
• Emerging firms rely on embedded
ties
– Low reputation / legitimacy
• Not an attractive partner
• -> reluctant banks etc.
– Limited search capabilities
• Growth firms have to rely on arms
length relations as well
– Firm is more attractive etc
– Better search capabilites
Intentionally managed networks
• Firms and individuals (can)
learn to create network
value
• Creation of networks also
depends on specific
competences
The Medici
• Policitical dynasty,
banking family, later
royal family (14
century)
• The Medici produced
four Popes & two
regent queens of
France a.o.
Padgett, John F.;
Ansell, Christopher
K. (May 1993).
"Robust Action and
the Rise of the
Medici, 1400–
1434".
The American
Journal of
Sociology 98 (6):
1259–1319.
The Toyata supplier network
• Japanese
automobile
makers are more
and more
productive, US is
lagging
• Dyer and
Nobeoka:
"Creating and
managing a high
performance
knowledgesharing network:
the Toyota case"
• One large network with
core firm as hub
• Bilateral relationships
• Weak ties/arm's length
relations
• Structural holes
• Large network plus multiple
nested networks
• Multi-lateral relationships
• Strong/embedded ties in
nested networks with core
firm
• Dense network
Knowledge sharing routines
• Dilemmas associated with knowledge
sharing
1. how can self-interested network members
openly share valuable knowledge?
2. how to prevent free-rider problems?
3. how to maximize the efficiency of knowledge
transfers?
Overcoming knowledge sharing dilemmas
1. how can self-interested network members openly share
valuable knowledge?
– Create a network 'identity' through network-level
knowledge-sharing routines
2. how to prevent free-rider problems?
– Network `rules' for knowledge protection and value
appropriation
3. how to maximize the efficiency of knowledge transfers?
– Creating multiple knowledge-sharing processes and subnetworks in the larger network
Why create an identity?
• Many experiments demonstrate the
powerfull effects of social identity, f.i.
– Randomly assign individuals to a blue and
a green group
– Individuals were unknown to each other
and were told that they would not meet
again
– Group members evaluated each other
more positively and were more willing to
cooperate with each other than non
group members
How did Toyata create a network 'identity'?
• Toyota's network is known (labeled) as the `Toyota
group'.
• Toyota creates a shared network identity by
developing multiple groups
– The supplier association
– Toyota's operations management consulting division
– Voluntary small group learning teams (jishuken)
Developing ties
• The supplier association (s)
– Kyohokai: Toyota's supplier association was
established in 1943
– Suppliers must be close to each other
• Supplier association has regular meetings, fi
– Quality committees.
– Visit `best practice' plants
– Quality management conference held once a year
Developing ties
• Toyota's operations management consulting
division
– Direct free `on-site' assistance for suppliers
• Voluntary small group learning teams
(jishuken)
– Each group consists of roughly 5-8 suppliers
– After determining theme, the group visits each
member to develop suggestions
– Groups are frequently rearranged
Network rules for knowledge
protection
• Creating an identity isn't enough to solve sharing and free
riding problems
• Toyota sets a norm/rule by sharing its own knowledge
– eliminating the notion that there is `proprietary knowledge'
• Suppliers must be willing to open their plants to other
network members to other network members
– reciprocal obligations: We will help you, but in return, you must agree
to help the network.
– reciprocity norm is enforced by implicit threat of withdrawal of
business
Creating multiple knowledge sharing processes
Alliance networks: Ahuja
Indirect tie
Direct tie
42
• Two types of ties
• Direct ties
– knowledge sharing
– complementary skills
– scale economies
• Indirect ties
– knowledge spillovers
Effects of direct ties
Many direct ties
Knowledge sharing
Complementarity
Economies of scale
43
Fewer direct ties
higher innovation output
Effects of indirect ties
Many indirect ties
Information gathering devices
Screening device
44
Fewer indirect ties
higher innovation output
Effects of indirect ties depend on the
# direct ties
Many direct ties
Fewer direct ties
Relative addition of new resources is smaller.
45
When many partners have indirect ties, information is likely less
valuable. since it will reach many others
What is better for innovation output of firms:
structural holes or network closure?
A
B
What is better for innovation output of firms:
structural holes or network closure?
A
B
Ahuja finds that firms embedded in a closed / dense network
outperform firms in a open network (B) in terms of
patent production