Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T07:16:38.348Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 16 - A Social Network Perspective on Open Strategy

from Part IV - Theoretical Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2019

By
Julia Hautz
Edited by
David Seidl ,
Georg von Krogh  and
Richard Whittington
David Seidl
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Georg von Krogh
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal University (ETH), Zürich
Richard Whittington
Affiliation:
Saïd Business School, University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Social network theory has been suggested to offer a particularly suitable perspective for studying both the emergence of increased openness in strategy processes as well as its consequences at multiple levels (Hautz, 2017; Hautz et al., 2017). Social network research and analysis have featured in the social sciences for nearly a century (Borgatti et al., 2009), but their application in an organizational context has increased significantly in recent years, undergoing exponential growth (Borgatti & Foster, 2003; Phelps et al., 2012). This dramatic increase is part of a general shift of research toward more relational, contextual, and systemic understandings (Borgatti & Foster, 2003). In this context, social networks offer a diverse repertoire of theories and frameworks to describe, analyze, and explain the behaviors and consequences that emerge from increased transparency and inclusion in strategy processes. These two dimensions of Open Strategy are based on concepts central to the network perspective, as they refer to increased internal and external transfer of strategic information and to external and internal exchange of information, views, and proposals intended to shape the continued evolution of an organization’s strategy (Whittington et al., 2011; Hautz et al., 2017).

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Open Strategy , pp. 272 - 288
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, P.S., & Seok-Woo, K. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27 (1), 17–40.Google Scholar
Ahuja, G. (2000a). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (3), 425–455.Google Scholar
Ahuja, G. (2000b). The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 317–343.Google Scholar
Ahuja, M.K., Galleta, D.F., & Carley, K.M. (2003). Individual centrality and performance in virtual R&D groups: An empirical study. Management Science, 49 (1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anand, B.N., & Khanna, T. (2000). Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (3), 295–315.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aral, S. (2011). Commentary – identifying social influence: A comment on opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science, 30 (2), 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aral, S., & Walker, D. (2011). Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Management Science 57 (9), 1623–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aten, K., & Thomas, G.F. (2016). Crowdsourcing strategizing: Communication technology affordances and the communicative constitution of organizational strategy. International Journal of Business Communication, 53 (2), 148–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, M. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: A comprehensive examination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (3), 592–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baptista, J., Wilson, A.D., Galliers, R.D., & Bynghall, S. (2017). Social media and the emergence of reflexiveness as a new capability for open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50 (3), 322–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatti, S.P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49 (4), 432–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatti, S.P., & Foster, P.C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29 (6), 991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatti, S.P., Mehra, A., Brass, D., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323 (5916), 892–895.Google Scholar
Brass, D.J., & Burkhardt, M.E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (3), 441–470.Google Scholar
Burt, R.S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92 (6), 1287–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R.S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (2), 339–365.Google Scholar
Burt, R.S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423.Google Scholar
Burt, R.S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110 (2), 349–399.Google Scholar
Burt, R.S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, M.A., Li, M., & Jiang, H. (2012). Social network research in organizational contexts: A systematic review of methodological issues and choices. Journal of Management, 38 (4), 1328–1361.Google Scholar
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7 (2), 119–135.Google Scholar
Davis, G.F. (1991). Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (4), 583–613.Google Scholar
Dobusch, L., & Kapeller, J. (2017). Open strategy-making with crowds and communities: Comparing Wikimedia and Creative Commons. Long Range Planning, 51 (4), 561–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R.I.M., Arnaboldi, V., Conti, M., & Passarella, A. (2015). The structure of online social networks mirrors those in the offline world. Social Networks, 43, 39–47.Google Scholar
Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52 (3), 443–475.Google Scholar
Freeman, L.C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1 , 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedkin, N.E. (1982). Information flow through strong and weak ties in intraorganizational social networks. Social Networks, 3 , 273–285.Google Scholar
Galaskiewicz, J., & Burt, R.S. (1991). Interorganization contagion in corporate philanthropy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (1), 88–105.Google Scholar
Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1994). Introduction: Advances in the social and behavioral sciences from social network analysis. In Wasserman &, S. Galaskiewicz, J. (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. xi–xvii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptations of social capital. Organization Science, 11 (2), 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gargiulo, M., Ertug, G., & Galunic, C. (2009). The two faces of control: Network closure and individual performance among knowledge workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54 (2), 299–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gast, A., & Zanini, M. (2012). The social side of strategy. McKinsey Quarterly, May, 1–15.Google Scholar
Gegenhuber, T., & Dobusch, L. (2017). Making an impression through openness: How open strategy-making practices change in the evolution of new ventures. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 337–354.Google Scholar
Geletkanycz, M.A., & Hambrick, D.C. (1997). The external ties of top executives: Implications for strategic choice and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (4), 654–681.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1982a). Reply to Nolan. American Journal of Sociology, 87 (4), 947–950.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1982b). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited in social structures and network analysis, Mardsen, P.V. & Lin, N. (Eds.), 105–130. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haefliger, S., Monteiro, E., Foray, D., & von Krogh, G. (2011). Social software and strategy. Long Range Planning, 44 (5/6), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannemann, R.A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Hansen, M.T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (1), 82–111.Google Scholar
Hansen, M.T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13 (3), 232–248.Google Scholar
Hautz, J. (2017). Opening up the strategy process – A network perspective. Management Decision, 55 (9), 1956–1983.Google Scholar
Hautz, J., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50 (3), 298–309.Google Scholar
Hutter, K., Nketia, B.A., & Füller, J. (2017). Falling short with participation – Different effects of ideation, commenting, and evaluating behavior on open strategizing. Long Range Planning, 50 (3), 355–370.Google Scholar
Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S.B. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (2), 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibarra, H., Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2005). Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research. Organization Science, 16 (4), 359–371.Google Scholar
Kane, G.C., & Alavi, M. (2008). Casting the net: A multimodal network perspective on user-system interactions. Information Systems Research, 19 (3), 253–272.Google Scholar
Kane, G.C., Alavi, M., Labianca, G., & Borgatti, S.P. (2014). What’s different about social media networks? A framework and research agenda. MIS Quarterly, 38 (1), 275–304.Google Scholar
Kane, G.C., & Borgatti, S.P. (2011). Centrality – IS proficiency alignment and workgroup performance. MIS Quarterly, 35 (4), 1063–1078.Google Scholar
Kilduff, M., & Brass, D.J. (2010). Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. The Academy of Management Annals, 4 (1), 317–357.Google Scholar
Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2004). Social networks and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Krackhardt, D., & Kilduff, M. (2002). Structure, culture and Simmelian ties in entrepreneurial firms. Social Networks, 24 (3), 279–290.Google Scholar
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lingo, E.L., & O’Mahony, S. (2010). Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55 (1), 47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luedicke, M.K., Husemann, K.C., Furnari, S., & Ladstaetter, F. (2017). Radically open strategizing: How the Premium Cola Collective takes open strategy to the extreme. Long Range Planning, 50 (3), 371–384.Google Scholar
Mack, D.Z., & Szulanski, G. (2017). Opening up: How centralization affects participation and inclusion in strategy making. Long Range Planning, 50 (3), 385–396.Google Scholar
Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2013). Towards an information systems perspective and research agenda on crowdsourcing for innovation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 22 (4), 257–268.Google Scholar
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Niemiec, R.M. (2017). Using public crowds for open strategy formulation: Mitigating the risks of knowledge gaps. Long Range Planning, 50 (3), 397–410.Google Scholar
Matzler, K., Füller, J., Hutter, K., Hautz, J., & Stieger, D. (2016). Crowdsourcing strategy: How openness changes strategy work. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 14 (3), 450–460.Google Scholar
Matzler, K., Füller, J., Koch, B., Hautz, J., & Hutter, K. (2014). Open strategy – A new strategy paradigm? In Matzler, Kurt, Pechlaner, Harald, & Renzl, Birgit (Eds.), Strategie Und Leadership (pp. 37–55). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
McDonald, M.L., & Westphal, J.D. (2003). Getting by with the advice of their friends: CEOs’ advice networks and firms’ strategic responses to poor performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 (1), 1–32.Google Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.Google Scholar
Moliterno, T.P., & Mahony, D.M. (2011). Network theory of organization: A multilevel approach. Journal of Management, 37 (2), 443–467.Google Scholar
Morton, J., Wilson, A., & Cooke, L. (2015). Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing in Open Strategy Initiatives in Proceedings of iFutures, 7. Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
Morton, J., Wilson, A., & Cooke, L. (2016). Open Strategy Initiatives: Open, It-Enabled Episodes of Strategic Practice in PACIS 2016 Proceedings. Chiayi, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Mount, M., & Pandza, K. (2017). Balancing Perceptions of Intra-Organizational Power Asymmetries: The Role of IT in Open Strategy in EGOS. Copenhagen, DK.Google Scholar
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 242–266.Google Scholar
Neeley, T.B., & Leonardi, P. (2018). Enacting knowledge strategy through social media: Passable trust and the paradox of nonwork interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 39 (3), 922–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerkar, A., & Paruchuri, S. (2005). Evolution of R&D capabilities: The role of knowledge networks within a firm. Management Science, 51 (5), 771–785.Google Scholar
Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius Iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (1), 100–130.Google Scholar
Perry-Smith, J.E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (1), 85–101.Google Scholar
Perry-Smith, J.E., & Shalley, C.E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 28 (1), 89–106.Google Scholar
Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38 (4), 1115–1166.Google Scholar
Pittz, T.G., & Adler, T. (2016). An exemplar of open strategy: Decision-making within multi-sector collaborations. Management Decision, 54 (7), 1595–1614.Google Scholar
Reagans, R., & Mcevily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 (2), 240–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivera, M.T., Soderstrom, S.B., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology, 36 (1), 91–115.Google Scholar
Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. (2004). More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (6), 541–562.Google Scholar
Seidl, D., & Werle, F. (2018). Inter-organizational sensemaking in the face of strategic meta-problems: Requisite variety and dynamics of participation. Strategic Management Journal, 39 (3), 830–858.Google Scholar
Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science, 51 (5), 756–770.Google Scholar
Smith, M., Shneiderman, B., Milic-Frayling, N., Rodrigues, E.M., Barash, V., Dunne, C., Capone, T., Perer, A., & Gleave, E. (2009). Analyzing (Social Media) Networks with Nodexl. Proc. 4th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, Springer.Google Scholar
Sosa, M.E. (2011). Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and social networks. Organization Science, 22 (1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. (2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54 (4), 44–68.Google Scholar
Tasselli, S., Kilduff, M., & Menges, J.I. (2015). The microfoundations of organizational social networks: A review and an agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 41 (5), 1361–1387.Google Scholar
Tortoriello, M., Reagans, R., & Mcevily, B. (2012). Bridging the knowledge gap: The influence of strong ties, network cohesion, and network range on the transfer of knowledge between organizational units. Organization Science, 23 (4), 1024–1039.Google Scholar
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111 (2), 447–504.Google Scholar
Valente, T.W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. New York: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
von Krogh, G. (2012). How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a strategic research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21 (2), 154–164.Google Scholar
Walker, G. (1985). Network position and cognition in a computer software firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (1), 103–130.Google Scholar
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Werle, F., & Seidl, D. (2012). Inter-Organizational Strategizing as Extension of Sensemaking Capacities in UZH Business Working Paper Series. Zurich: University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Whittington, R., Cailluet, L., & Yakis-Douglas, B. (2011). Opening strategy: Evolution of a precarious profession. British Journal of Management, 22 (3), 531–544.Google Scholar
Wulf, A., & Butel, L. (2016). Knowledge sharing and innovative corporate strategies in collaborative relationships: The potential of open strategy in business ecosystems. In Shaofeng, Liu, Delibašić, Boris, & Oderanti, Festus (Eds.), Decision support systems VI – 2nd international conference (pp. 165–181). Plymouth, UK: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Yakis-Douglas, B., Angwin, D., Ahn, K., & Meadows, M. (2017). Opening M&A strategy to investors: Predictors and outcomes of transparency during organisational transition. Long Range Planning, 50 (3), 411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaheer, A., Gözübüyük, R., & Milanov, H. (2010). It’s the connections: The network perspective in interorganizational research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24 (1), 62–77.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×