Network Centralization and Collective Adaptability to a Shifting Environment

References

• Afuah A, Tucci CL (2012) Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Acad. Management Rev. 37(3):355–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Almaatouq A, Yin M, Watts DJ (2020) Collective problem-solving of groups across tasks of varying complexity. Working paper, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ra9qy.Google Scholar
• Aranda C, Arellano J, Davila A (2017) Organizational learning in target setting. Acad. Management J. 60(3):1189–1211.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
• Argote L, Aven BL, Kush J (2018) The effects of communication networks and turnover on transactive memory and group performance. Organ. Sci. 29(2):191–206.Link, Google Scholar
• Aven B (2010) Network structures of corrupt innovations: The case of Enron. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Bahrami B, Olsen K, Latham PE, Roepstorff A, Rees G, Frith CD (2010) Optimally interacting minds. Science 329(5995):1081–1085.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banerjee AV (1992) A simple model of herd behavior. Quart. J. Econom. 107(3):797–817.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bavelas A (1950) Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. J. Acoustical Soc. America 22(6):725–730.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker J, Brackbill D, Centola D (2017) Network dynamics of social influence in the wisdom of crowds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114(26):5070–5076.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GA (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Anal. 20(3):351–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein ES (2012) The transparency paradox: A role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control. Admin. Sci. Quart. 57(2):181–216.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein ES (2022) Leveling the “flatter” playing field. J. Organ. Design, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41469-022-00111-z.Google Scholar
• Bernstein E, Shore J, Lazer D (2018) How intermittent breaks in interaction improve collective intelligence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115(35):8734–8739.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein E, Bunch J, Canner N, Lee M (2016) Beyond the holacracy hype. Harvard Bus. Rev. (July/August), https://hbr.org/2016/07/beyond-the-holacracy-hype.Google Scholar
• Bigham J (2014) My mTurk (half) workday. Accessed January 19, 2022, http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jbigham/posts/2014/half-workday-as-turker.html.Google Scholar
• Bikhchandani S, Hirshleifer D, Welch I (1992) A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. J. Political Econom. 100(5):992–1026.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bloom N, Genakos C, Sadun R, Van Reenen J (2012) Management practices across firms and countries. Acad. Management J. Perspect. 26(1):12–33.Google Scholar
• Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality: A family of measures. Amer. J. Sociol. 92(5):1170–1182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP, Everett MG (2000) Models of core/periphery structures. Soc. Networks 21(4):375–395.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Lacetera N, Lakhani KR (2011) Incentives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: An empirical analysis. Management Sci. 57(5):843–863.Link, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. Amer. J. Sociol. 110(2):349–399.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butts CT, Petrescu-Prahova M, Remy Cross B (2007) Responder communication networks in the world trade center disaster: Implications for modeling of communication within emergency settings. J. Math. Sociol. 31(2):121–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cattani G, Ferriani S (2008) A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organ. Sci. 19(6):824–844.Link, Google Scholar
• Centola D (2010) The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329(5996):1194–1197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Centola D, Macy M (2007) Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. Amer. J. Sociol. 113(3):702–734.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen CM (2013) The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (Harvard Business Review Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Colizza V, Flammini A, Serrano MA, Vespignani A (2006) Detecting rich-club ordering in complex networks. Nature Phys. 2(2):110–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Connelly BL, Johnson JL, Tihanyi L, Ellstrand AE (2011) More than adopters: Competing influences in the interlocking directorate. Organ. Sci. 22(3):688–703.Link, Google Scholar
• Cummings JN, Cross R (2003) Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Soc. Networks 25(3):197–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahlander L, Frederiksen L (2012) The core and cosmopolitans: A relational view of innovation in user communities. Organ. Sci. 23(4):988–1007.Link, Google Scholar
• Detert JR, Burris ER (2007) Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Acad. Management J. 50(4):869–884.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Detert JR, Burris ER, Harrison DA, Martin SR (2013) Voice flows to and around leaders: Understanding when units are helped or hurt by employee voice. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(4):624–668.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Engel D, Woolley AW, Jing LX, Chabris CF, Malone TW (2014) Reading the mind in the eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face. PLoS One 9(12):e115212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frahm KM, Shepelyansky DL (2012) Google matrix of Twitter. Eur. Physical J. B 85(10):355.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman LC (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc. Networks 1(3):215–239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galinsky AD, Chou EY, Halevy N, Van Kleef GA (2012) The far-reaching effects of power: At the individual, dyadic, and group levels. Neale MA, Mannix EA, eds. Looking Back, Moving Forward: A Review of Group and Team-Based Research (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, London), 81–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geraci M, Bottai M (2014) Linear quantile mixed models. Statist. Comput. 24(3):461–479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Golub B, Jackson MO (2010) Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. Econom. J. Microeconomics 2(1):112–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management J. 17(S2):109–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gray ML, Suri S, Ali SS, Kulkarni D (2016) The crowd is a collaborative network. Proc. 19th ACM Conf. Comput.-Supported Cooperative Work Soc. Comput. (ACM, New York), 134–147.Google Scholar
• Greer LL, de Jong BA, Schouten ME, Dannals JE (2018) Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration. J. Appl. Psych. 103(6):591–613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gruenfeld DH, Tiedens LZ (2010) Organizational preferences and their consequences. Fiske ST, Gilbert ST, Lindzey G, eds. Handbook of Social Psychology (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York), 1252–1287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R (2007) Silo busting. Harvard Bus. Rev. 85(5):98–108.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
• Hackman JR (2011) Collaborative Intelligence: Using Teams to Solve Hard Problems (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Hansen MT (1999) The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(1):82–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong L, Page SE (2004) Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101(46):16385–16389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Horton JJ, Rand DG, Zeckhauser RJ (2011) The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experiment Econom. 14(3):399–425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang S, Cummings JN (2011) When critical knowledge is most critical: Centralization in knowledge-intensive teams. Small Group Res. 42(6):669–699.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Immelt JR (2017) How I remade GE and what I learned along the way. Harvard Bus. Rev. 95(5):42–51.Google Scholar
• Kane GC, Alavi M (2007) Information technology and organizational learning: An investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organ. Sci. 18(5):796–812.Link, Google Scholar
• Lavie D, Stettner U, Tushman ML (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad. Management Ann. 4(1):109–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazer D, Friedman A (2007) The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(4):667–694.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee MY, Edmondson AC (2017) Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing. Res. Organ. Behav. 37(2017):35–58.Google Scholar
• Leonardi PM (2014) Social media, knowledge sharing, and innovation: Toward a theory of communication visibility. Inform. Systems Res. 25(4):796–816.Link, Google Scholar
• Levay KE, Freese J, Druckman JN (2016) The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. Sage Open 6(1):2158244016636433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine SS, Reypens C, Riedl C (2018) Should I stay or should I go? The cognition of exploration and exploitation. Acad. Management Proc. (Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY), 10248.Google Scholar
• Levine SS, Apfelbaum EP, Bernard M, Bartelt VL, Zajac EJ, Stark D (2014) Ethnic diversity deflates price bubbles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111(52):18524–18529.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA (1997) Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Sci. 43(7):934–950.Link, Google Scholar
• Lin N (1999) Social networks and status attainment. Annual Rev. Sociol. 25(1):467–487.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Machado JAF, Silva JS (2005) Quantiles for counts. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 100(472):1226–1237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Madirolas G, De Polavieja G (2014) Wisdom of the confident: Using social interactions to eliminate the bias in wisdom of the crowds. Proc. Collective Intelligence Conf., 10–12.Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, Cherbakov L, Ives B (2009) Harnessing the power of the crowds with corporate social networking tools: How IBM does it. MIS Quart. Executive 8(2):103–108.Google Scholar
• Malone TW (2018) Superminds: The Surprising Power of People and Computers Thinking Together (Little, Brown and Company, New York).Google Scholar
• March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Mason W, Suri S (2012) Conducting behavioral research on amazon’s mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 44(1):1–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mason W, Watts DJ (2012) Collaborative learning in networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109(3):764–769.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mason WA, Jones A, Goldstone RL (2008) Propagation of innovations in networked groups. J. Experiment. Psych. General 137(3):422–433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCredie MN, Morey LC (2019) Who are the Turkers? A characterization of mturk workers using the personality assessment inventory. Assessment 26(5):759–766.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Montgomery JM, Nyhan B, Torres M (2018) How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. Amer. J. Political Sci. 62(3):760–775.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morrison EW (2011) Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Acad. Management Ann. 5(1):373–412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neeley T (2021) Remote Work Revolution: Succeeding from Anywhere (Harvard Business Review Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Nickerson JA, Zenger TR (2004) A knowledge-based theory of the firm-the problem-solving perspective. Organ. Sci. 15(6):617–632.Link, Google Scholar
• Prennushi G, Shaw KL, Ichniowski C (1997) The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. Amer. Econom. Rev. 87(3):291–313.Google Scholar
• Puranam P (2018) The Microstructure of Organizations (Oxford University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2):240–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reeves M, Faeste L, Whitaker K, Hassan F (2018) The truth about corporate transformation. MIT Sloan Management Rev. 59(3):1–7.Google Scholar
• Reitzig M (2022) Get Better at Flatter: A Guide to Shaping and Leading Organizations with Less Hierarchy (Springer, Cham, Switzerland).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilke O, Hu S, Helfat CE (2018) Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Acad. Management Ann. 12(1):390–439.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA, Phelps CC (2007) Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Sci. 53(7):1113–1126.Link, Google Scholar
• Shaw ME (1954) Group structure and the behavior of individuals in small groups. J. Psych. 38(1):139–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shore J, Bernstein E, Lazer D (2015) Facts and figuring: An experimental investigation of network structure and performance in information and solution spaces. Organ. Sci. 26(5):1432–1446.Link, Google Scholar
• Stasser G, Davis JH (1981) Group decision making and social influence: A social interaction sequence model. Psych. Rev. 88(6):523–551.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stasser G, Stewart D (1992) Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem vs. making a judgment. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 63(3):426–434.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stasser G, Titus W (2003) Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psych. Inquiry 14(3-4):304–313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ter Wal AL, Alexy O, Block J, Sandner PG (2016) The best of both worlds: The benefits of open-specialized and closed-diverse syndication networks for new ventures’ success. Admin. Sci. Quart. 61(3):393–432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tiedens LZ, Fragale AR (2003) Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 84(3):558–568.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tortoriello M (2015) The social underpinnings of absorptive capacity: The moderating effects of structural holes on innovation generation based on external knowledge. Strateg. Management J. 36(4):586–597.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML (1979) Work characteristics and subunit communication structure: A contingency analysis. Admin. Sci. Quart. 24(1):82–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ugander J, Backstrom L, Marlow C, Kleinberg J (2012) Structural diversity in social contagion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109(16):5962–5966.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
• Valentine MA (2018) Renegotiating spheres of obligation: The role of hierarchy in organizational learning. Admin. Sci. Quart. 63(3):570–606.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van der Vegt GS, De Jong SB, Bunderson JS, Molleman E (2010) Power asymmetry and learning in teams: The moderating role of performance feedback. Organ. Sci. 21(2):347–361.Link, Google Scholar
• White HC, Boorman SA, Breiger RL (1976) Social structure from multiple networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions. Amer. J. Sociol. 81(4):730–780.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330(6004):686–688.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036–1039.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yan B, Jian L, Ren R, Fulk J, Sidnam-Mauch E, Monge P (2021) The paradox of interaction: Communication network centralization, shared task experience, and the wisdom of crowds in online crowdsourcing communities. Comm. Res. 48(6):796–818.Crossref, Google Scholar