Discretion Within Constraint: Homophily and Structure in a Formal Organization

Organization Science - Tập 24 Số 5 - Trang 1316-1336 - 2013
Adam M. Kleinbaum1, Toby E. Stuart2, Michael L. Tushman3
1Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755
2Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720
3Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts, 02163

Tóm tắt

Homophily in social relations results from both individual preferences and selective opportunities for interaction, but how these two mechanisms interact in large, contemporary organizations is not well understood. We argue that organizational structures and geography delimit opportunities for interaction such that actors have a greater level of discretion to choose their interaction partners within business units, job functions, offices, and quasi-formal structures. This leads us to expect to find a higher proportion of homophilous interactions within these organizational structures than across their boundaries. We test our theory in an analysis of the rate of dyadic communication in an email data set comprising thousands of employees in a large information technology firm. These findings have implications for research on homophily, gender relations in organizations, and formal and informal organizational structure.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1287/mnsc.1110.1452

10.1287/orsc.10.1.43

Alderfer CP, 1987, Handbook of Organizational Behavior, 190

Allen TJ, 1977, Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D Organization

10.1073/pnas.0908800106

10.2307/2392790

Bernard HR, 1981, Connections, 4, 11

10.1086/228350

Blau PM, 1994, Structural Contexts of Opportunities

Blau PM, 1984, Crosscutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations

10.1287/mnsc.49.4.432.14428

10.1086/216031

10.2307/256204

10.1177/104346398010001001

Cairncross F, 2001, The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution Is Changing Our Lives

10.1198/jbes.2010.07136

10.2189/asqu.2005.50.2.167

Chandler AD, 1962, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise

10.2307/1912755

10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004

10.1073/pnas.0405728101

10.2307/2393234

10.1086/227352

10.1086/595941

10.2307/3707362

Fischer CS, 1982, To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City

10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.02.011

Galbraith JR, 1973, Designing Complex Organizations

Galbraith JR, 1994, Competing with Flexible Lateral Organizations, 2

10.2307/249720

10.1287/orsc.1090.0508

10.1353/dem.0.0045

10.2307/1913471

10.1515/9781400834389

10.1287/orsc.1090.0421

Hackman JR, 1980, Work Redesign

10.1016/0378-8733(95)00255-3

Hrebiniak LG, 1984, Implementing Strategy

10.2307/2393451

10.2307/258823

10.2307/256742

10.2307/2787014

Ibarra H, 1997, Creating Tomorrow’s Organizations: A Handbook for Future Research in Organizational Behavior, 359

10.2307/2951544

10.2189/asqu.52.4.558

10.1016/j.socnet.2012.02.004

Kalleberg AL, 1996, Organizations in America: Analyzing Their Structures and Human Resource Practices

Kanter RM, 1977, Men and Women of the Corporation

Kaufman RL, 2010, Race, Gender, and the Labor Market: Inequalities at Work, 10.1515/9781588269539

10.3102/00028312011004359

Kenny DA, 2006, Dyadic Data Analysis

10.17730/humo.35.3.10215j2m359266n2

10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a004868

Kleinbaum AM, 2012, Admin. Sci. Quart., 57, 1

Kleinbaum AM, 2013, Strategic Management J.

Kleinbaum AM, Stuart TE, Tushman ML (2009) Communication (and coordination?) in a modern, complex organization. Working paper, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.

10.1287/orsc.3.3.383

10.1086/231292

10.1086/599247

10.1016/0304-4076(94)01698-4

Laumann EO, 1966, Prestige and Association in an Urban Community; an Analysis of an Urban Stratification System

Lazarsfeld PF, 1954, Freedom and Control in Modern Society, 18

10.1016/j.socnet.2008.07.002

10.1017/CBO9780511815447

10.2307/2392493

10.1016/j.socnet.2010.04.002

Liu CC, 2010, Essays on Network Antecedents in a Knowledge Production Context

10.1093/qje/121.1.79

10.2307/2095397

10.1016/0378-8733(88)90010-X

10.1017/CBO9780511811395.002

McGregor D, 1960, The Human Side of the Enterprise

10.1177/0891243202016003003

10.2307/2095356

10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

10.1177/0042098010377363

10.1086/421509

Quintane E, 2011, Connections, 31, 22

10.1287/mnsc.1050.0389

10.1287/orsc.1100.0587

10.2307/4131457

10.2307/2657301

10.2307/1519766

10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00262-2

10.2307/2112441

10.1162/rest.88.4.641

Simmel G, 1902, The Sociology of Georg Simmel

10.1287/mnsc.1100.1201

10.1002/smj.1966

10.1086/321301

10.2307/2095160

10.1177/0003122411399390

Taylor FW, 1911, Scientific Management, 2

10.1002/job.4030110608

Thompson JD, 1967, Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory, 2

Turner AN, 1965, Industrial Jobs and the Worker: An Investigation of Response to Task Attributes

Tushman ML, 1978, Acad. Management Rev., 3, 613, 10.2307/257550

Tzabbar D, Vestal A, Porter R, McMahon S (2010) The interdependencies of formal and informal structure and the exploration of new technological opportunities among geographically dispersed firms. Presentation, SMS 30th Annual International Conference, September 13, Strategic Management Society, Chicago.

10.1017/CBO9780511815478

Williamson OE, 1975, Markets and Hierarchies, Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization

Wooldridge JM, 1997, Handbook of Applied Econometrics, 2, 352

10.1371/journal.pone.0026972

Yakubovich V, Shekshnia S (2010) Networks of task interdependence and promotion: A case of the Russian corporate bureaucracy. Wharton School working paper, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Zipf GK, 1949, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort; An Introduction to Human Ecology

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Organization Science

Tập 24 Số 5

1316-1336

Thông tin tác giả