Reorganization and Tie Decay Choices

References

• Ahuja G, Soda G, Zaheer A (2012) The genesis and dynamics of organizational networks. Organ. Sci. 23(2):434–448.Link, Google Scholar
• Ai C, Norton EC (2003) Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Econom. Lett. 80(1):123–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alcácer J, Zhao M (2012) Local R&D strategies and multilocation firms: The role of internal linkages. Management Sci. 58(4):734–753.Link, Google Scholar
• Allen TJ (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information within the R&D Organization (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Allison PD (1999) Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociol. Methods Res. 28(2):186–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argote L, Ingram P (2000) Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 82(1):150–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Austin EJ, Farrelly D, Black C, Moore H (2007) Emotional intelligence, Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side? Personality and Individual Differences 43(1):179–189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartlett MY, DeSteno D (2006) Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it costs you. Psych. Sci. 17(4):319–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blau PM (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Blumstein P, Kollock P (1988) Personal relationships. Annual Rev. Sociology 14:467–490.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality: A family of measures. Amer. J. Sociology 92(5):1170–1182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brewer DD (2000) Forgetting in the recall-based elicitation of personal and social networks. Soc. Networks 22(1):29–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2000) Decay functions. Soc. Networks 22(1):1–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2001) Attachment, decay, and social network. J. Organ. Behav. 22(6):619–643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. Amer. J. Sociol. 110(2):349–399.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2005) Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2012) Network-related personality and the agency question: Multi-role evidence from a virtual world. Amer. J. Sociol. 118(3):543–591.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Byrne D, Clore GL, Smeaton G (1986) The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect anything? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 51(6):1167–1170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cameron AC, Gelbach JB, Miller DL (2011) Robust inference with Multi-way clustering. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 29(2):238–249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chakravarti A, Menon T, Winship C (2014) Contact and group structure: A natural experiment of interracial college roommate groups. Organ. Sci. 25(4):1216–1233.Link, Google Scholar
• Christie R, Geis FL (1970) Studies in Machiavellianism (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Amer. J. Sociol. 94:S95–S120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook KS, Emerson RM (1978) Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 43(5):721–739.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook KS, Rice E (2006) Social exchange theory. DeLamater J, ed. Handbook of Social Psychology (Springer, New York), 53–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Csardi G, Nepusz T (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Systems:1695.Google Scholar
• D’Agostino RB, Belanger A, D’Agostino Jr RB (1990) A suggestion for using powerful and informative tests of normality. Amer. Statistician 44(4):316–321.Google Scholar
• Dahl MS, Sorenson O (2012) Home sweet home: Entrepreneurs’ location choices and the performance of their ventures. Management Sci. 58(6):1059–1071.Link, Google Scholar
• Dahlander L, McFarland DA (2013) Ties that last: Tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(1):69–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davey CG, Allen NB, Harrison BJ, Dwyer DB, Yücel M (2010) Being liked activates primary reward and midline self-related brain regions. Human Brain Mapping 31(4):660–668.Google Scholar
• Desmond M (2012) Disposable ties and the urban poor. Amer. J. Sociol. 117(5):1295–1335.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dunbar RIM (2008) Cognitive constraints on the structure and dynamics of social networks. Group Dynam.: Theory, Res., Practice 12(1):7–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feiler D, Kleinbaum AM (2015) Popularity, similarity, and the network extraversion bias. Psych. Sci. 26(5):593–603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feld SL (1981) The focused organization of social ties. Amer. J. Sociol. 86(5):1015–1035.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feld SL (1997) Structural embeddedness and stability of interpersonal relations. Soc. Networks 19(1):91–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Festinger L, Schachter S, Back K (1950) Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flynn FJ (2003) How much should i give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Acad. Management J. 46(5):539–553.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedkin NE (1990) A Guttman scale for the strength of an interpersonal tie. Soc. Networks 12(3):239–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Funder DC, Kolar DC, Blackman MC (1995) Agreement among judges of personality: Interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquaintanceship. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 69(4):656–672.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galbraith JR (1973) Designing Complex Organizations (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).Google Scholar
• Gangestad SW, Snyder M (2000) Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psych. Bull. 126(4):530–555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Anchor Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Goodreau SM, Kitts JA, Morris M (2009) Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? Using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks. Demography 46(1):103–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gouaux C (1971) Induced affective states and interpersonal attraction. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 20(1):37–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gouldner AW (1960) The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 25(2):161–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granovetter MS (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Amer. J. Sociol. 91(3):481–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greene W (2010) Testing hypotheses about interaction terms in nonlinear models. Econom. Lett. 107(2):291–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Puranam P (2009) Renewal through reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organ. Sci. 20(2):422–440.Link, Google Scholar
• Hallinan MT (1979) The process of friendship formation. Soc. Networks 1(2):193–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Han SK (1996) Structuring relations in on-the-job networks. Soc. Networks 18(1):47–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hasan S, Bagde S (2015) Peers and network growth: Evidence from a natural experiment. Management Sci. 61(10):2536–2547.Link, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1):153–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heider F (1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (Wiley, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hidalgo CA, Rodriguez-Sickert C (2008) The dynamics of a mobile phone network. Physica A: Statist. Mech. Its Appl. 387(12):3017–3024.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ibarra H (1992) Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(3):422–447.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ibarra H (1995) Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Acad. Management J. 38(3):673–703.Crossref, Google Scholar
• John OP, Robins RW (1993) Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The big five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. J. Personality 61(4):521–551.Crossref, Google Scholar
• John OP, Srivastava S (1999) The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives (Guilford Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Jonczyk C, Lee Y, Galunic C, Bensaou BM (2016) Relational changes during role transitions: The interplay of efficiency and cohesion. Acad. Management J. 59(3):956–982.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kennedy PE (1995) Randomization tests in econometrics. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 13(1):85–94.Google Scholar
• Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL (2006) Dyadic Data Analysis (Guilford Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Kilduff M, Day DV (1994) Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers. Acad. Management J. 37(4):1047–1060.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kilduff M, Krackhardt D (2008) Interpersonal Networks in Organizations: Cognition, Personality, Dynamics, and Culture (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum AM (2012) Organizational misfits and the origins of brokerage in intrafirm networks. Admin. Sci. Quart. 57(3):407–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum AM, Stuart TE (2014a) Inside the black box of the corporate staff: Social networks and the implementation of corporate strategy. Strategic Management J. 35(1):24–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum AM, Stuart TE (2014b) Network responsiveness: The social structural microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Acad. Management Perspect. 28(4):353–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum AM, Tushman ML (2007) Building bridges: The social structure of interdependent innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 1(1):103–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum AM, Jordan AH, Audia P (2015) An altercentric perspective on the origins of brokerage in social networks: How perceived empathy moderates the self-monitoring effect. Organ. Sci. 26(4):1226–1242.Link, Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum AM, Stuart TE, Tushman ML (2013) Discretion within constraint: Homophily and structure in a formal organization. Organ. Sci. 24(5):1316–1336.Link, Google Scholar
• Kossinets G, Watts DJ (2009) Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. Amer. J. Sociol. 115(2):405–450.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D (1998) Simmelian Ties: Super Strong and Sticky (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Labianca GJ (2014) Negative Ties in Organizational Networks (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lennox RD, Wolfe RN (1984) Revision of the self-monitoring scale. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 46(6):1349–1364.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levin DZ, Walter J, Murnighan JK (2011) Dormant ties: The value of reconnecting. Organ. Sci. 22(4):923–939.Link, Google Scholar
• Levin DZ, Whitener EM, Cross R (2006) Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The moderating impact of relationship length. J. Appl. Psych. 91(5):1163–1171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis PA, Rezaie R, Brown R, Roberts N, Dunbar RIM (2011) Ventromedial prefrontal volume predicts understanding of others and social network size. NeuroImage 57(4):1624–1629.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lindgren K-O (2010) Dyadic regression in the presence of heteroscedasticity—An assessment of alternative approaches. Soc. Networks 32(4):279–289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Machiavelli N (1910) The Prince. PF Collier.Google Scholar
• Manski CF (1993) Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Rev. Econom. Stud. 60(3):531–542.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marmaros D, Sacerdote B (2006) How do friendships form? Quart. J. Econom. 121(1):79–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marsden PV (1990) Network data and measurement. Annual Rev. Sociol. 16(1):435–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martin JL, Yeung K-T (2006) Persistence of close personal ties over a 12-year period. Soc. Networks 28(4):331–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCabe J (2014) Friends with academic benefits: How networks matter during and after college. Working paper, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.Google Scholar
• McEvily B, Soda G, Tortoriello M (2014) More formally: Rediscovering the missing link between formal organization and informal social structure. Acad. Management Ann. 8(1):299–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson JM, Smith-Lovin L (1987) Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 52(3):370–379.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPherson JM, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Rev. Sociol. 27(1):415–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mechanic D (1962) Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 7(3):349–364.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mehra A, Kilduff M, Brass DJ (2001) The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(1):121–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mischel W (1977) The Interaction of Person and Situation (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ).Google Scholar
• Mizruchi MS, Stearns LB, Fleischer A (2011) Getting a bonus: Social networks, performance, and reward among commercial bankers. Organ. Sci. 22(1):42–59.Link, Google Scholar
• Montoya RM, Insko CA (2008) Toward a more complete understanding of the reciprocity of liking effect. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 38(3):477–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mouw T (2006) Estimating the causal effect of social capital: A review of recent research. Annual Rev. Sociol. 32:79–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newcomb TM (1956) The prediction of interpersonal attraction. Amer. Psychologist 11(11):575–586.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newcomb TM (1961) The Acquaintance Process (Holt, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newman MEJ (2010) Networks: An Introduction (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newman MEJ, Barabasi AL, Watts DJ (2006) The Structure and Dynamics of Networks (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Oh H, Kilduff M (2008) The ripple effect of personality on social structure: Self-monitoring origins of network brokerage. J. Appl. Psych. 95(5):1155–1164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oishi S, Koo M, Akimoto S (2008) Culture, interpersonal perceptions, and happiness in social interactions. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 34(3):307–320.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (Stanford Business Classics, Stanford, CA).Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (2005) Status Signals: A Sociological Study of Market Competition (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Podolny JM, Baron JN (1997) Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 62(5):673–693.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell J, Lewis PA, Roberts N, García-Fiñana M, Dunbar RIM (2012) Orbital prefrontal cortex volume predicts social network size: An imaging study of individual differences in humans. Proc. Roy. Soc. B: Biological Sci. 279(1736):2157–2162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.Google Scholar
• Raeder T, Lizardo O, Hachen D, Chawla NV (2011) Predictors of short-term decay of cell phone contacts in a large scale communication network. Soc. Networks 33(4):245–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R, Zuckerman EW (2001) Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organ. Sci. 12(4):502–517.Link, Google Scholar
• Reagans R, Zuckerman E, McEvily B (2004) How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 49(1):101–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogers CR (1980) A Way of Being (Houghton Mifflin, Boston).Google Scholar
• Ryall MD, Sorenson O (2007) Brokers and competitive advantage. Management Sci. 53(4):566–583.Link, Google Scholar
• Sailer K, McCulloh I (2012) Social networks and spatial configuration—How office layouts drive social interaction. Soc. Networks 34(1):47–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sasovova Z, Mehra A, Borgatti SP, Schippers MC (2010) Network churn: The effects of self-monitoring personality on brokerage dynamics. Admin. Sci. Quart. 55(4):639–670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schaefer DR, Light JM, Fabes RA, Hanish LD, Martin CL (2010) Fundamental principles of network formation among preschool children. Soc. Networks 32(1):61–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schutte NS, Kenrick DT, Sadalla EK (1985) The search for predictable settings: Situational prototypes, constraint, and behavioral variation. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 49(1):121–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shipilov A, Labianca G, Kalnysh V, Kalnysh Y (2014) Network-building behavioral tendencies, range, and promotion speed. Soc. Networks 39(October):71–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simmel G (1902) The Sociology of Georg Simmel (Free Press, Glencoe, IL).Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1945) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization (Free Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Snyder M (1974) Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 30(4):526–537.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snyder M, Gangestad S (1986) On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 51(1):125–139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sorenson O, Stuart TE (2008) Bringing the context back in: Settings and the search for syndicate partners in venture capital investment networks. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(2):266–294.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sprecher S, Treger S, Wondra JD, Hilaire N, Wallpe K (2013) Taking turns: Reciprocal self-disclosure promotes liking in initial interactions. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 49(5):860–866.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toegel G, Anand N, Kilduff M (2007) Emotion helpers: The role of high positive affectivity and high self-monitoring managers. Personnel Psych. 60(2):337–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1):35–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vaughan D (1986) Uncoupling: Turning Points in Intimate Relationship (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Wallace WL (1966) Student Culture; Social Structure and Continuity in a Liberal Arts College (Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Watts DJ (1999) Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon. Amer. J. Sociol. 105(2):493–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wolff SB (2005) Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) Technical Manual (Hay Group, Philadelphia). Accessed November 1, 2012, http://bit.ly/ECI_Tech_Man.Google Scholar
• Yakubovich V, Burg R (2016) Formal task interdependence and the reproduction of informal relations in organizations. Working paper, ESSEC Business School, Cedex, France.Google Scholar
• Yue LQ (2012) Asymmetric effects of fashions on the formation and dissolution of networks: Board interlocks with internet companies, 1996–2006. Organ. Sci. 23(4):1114–1134.Link, Google Scholar
• Zaheer A, Soda G (2009) Network evolution: The origins of structural holes. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(1):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar