Tertius Dolens: Interalter Conflict and Its Negative Impact on Broker Performance

References

• Aharonson BS, Schilling MA (2016) Mapping the technological landscape: Measuring technology distance, technological footprints, and technology evolution. Res. Policy 45(1):81–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahuja G (2000) Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(3):425–455.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A (2001) Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Indust. Corporate Change 10(2):419–451.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Awate KS, Khanna R, Srikanth K (2025) Big shoes to fill: How star search behavior and network structure influence coinventor mobility and innovation performance upon star exit. Organ. Sci. 36(6):2264–2283.Link, Google Scholar
• Baertlein L (2007) Amgen says court backs one patent claim vs Roche. Reuters (August 29), https://www.reuters.com/article/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/amgen-says-court-backs-one-patent-claim-vs-roche-idUSN28294393/.Google Scholar
• Balachandran S, Hernandez E (2018) Networks and innovation: Accounting for structural and institutional sources of recombination in brokerage triads. Organ. Sci. 29(1):80–99.Link, Google Scholar
• Baum JAC, Calabrese T, Silverman BS (2000) Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management J. 21(3):267–294.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belenzon S (2012) Cumulative innovation and market value: Evidence from patent citations. Econom. J. 122(559):265–285.Google Scholar
• Bonacich P, Lloyd P (2001) Eigenvector-like measures of centrality for asymmetric relations. Soc. Networks 23(3):191–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. Amer. J. Sociol. 110(2):349–399.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS, Soda G (2021) Network capabilities: Brokerage as a bridge between network theory and the resource-based view of the firm. J. Management 47(7):1698–1719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Busenbark JR, Graffin SD, Campbell RJ, Lee EY (2022a) A marginal effects approach to interpreting main effects and moderation. Organ. Res. Methods 25(1):147–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Busenbark JR, Yoon H, Gamache DL, Withers MC (2022b) Omitted variable bias: Examining management research with the impact threshold of a confounding variable (ITCV). J. Management 48(1):17–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2022) Microeconometrics Using Stata, Second Edition, Volume I: Cross-Sectional and Panel Regression Models (Stata Press, Los Angeles).Google Scholar
• Carnabuci G, Operti E (2013) Where do firms’ recombinant capabilities come from? Intraorganizational networks, knowledge, and firms’ ability to innovate through technological recombination. Strategic Management J. 34(13):1591–1613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cartwright D, Harary F (1956) Structural balance: A generalization of Heider’s theory. Psych. Rev. 63(5):277–293.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
• Cotter TF (2021) Damages for noneconomic harm in intellectual property law. UC Law J. 72(4):1055–1120.Google Scholar
• Cui V, Yang H, Vertinsky I (2018) Attacking your partners: Strategic alliances and competition between partners in product markets. Strategic Management J. 39(12):3116–3139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahlander L, Frederiksen L (2011) The core and cosmopolitans: A relational view of innovation in user communities. Organ. Sci. 23(4):988–1007.Link, Google Scholar
• Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM (2011) Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation: Recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Admin. Sci. Quart. 56(2):159–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edris S, Belderbos R, Gilsing V (2024) Types of common R&D partners and knowledge leakage to rivals: The role of IP litigation reputation. Technovation 131:102955.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Emerson RM (1962) Power-dependence relations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 27(1):31–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferriani S, Fonti F, Corrado R (2013) The social and economic bases of network multiplexity: Exploring the emergence of multiplex ties. Strategic Organ. 11(1):7–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming L, Waguespack DM (2007) Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organ. Sci. 18(2):165–180.Link, Google Scholar
• Fleming L, Mingo S, Chen D (2007) Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(3):443–475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frank KA (2000) Impact of a confounding variable on a regression coefficient. Sociol. Methods Res. 29(2):147–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gimeno J, Woo CY (1996) Economic multiplexity: The structural embeddedness of cooperation in multiple relations of interdependence. Adv. Strategic Management 13(3):323–361.Google Scholar
• Gittelman M (2008) A note on the value of patents as indicators of innovation: Implications for management research. Acad. Management Perspect. 22(3):21–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goerzen A (2007) Alliance networks and firm performance: The impact of repeated partnerships. Strategic Management J. 28(5):487–509.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldsmith-Pinkham P, Sorkin I, Swift H (2020) Bartik instruments: What, when, why, and how. Amer. Econom. Rev. 110(8):2586–2624.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gould RV, Fernandez RM (1989) Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociol. Methodology 19(1):89–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greve HR, Palmer D, Pozner JE (2010) Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct. Acad. Management Ann. 4(1):53–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greve HR, Rowley TJ, Shipilov A (2013) The Network Advantage (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Gulati R (1995) Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Acad. Management J. 38(1):85–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R (1998) Alliances and networks. Strategic Management J. 19(4):293–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Gargiulo M (1999) Where do interorganizational networks come from? Amer. J. Sociol. 104(5):1439–1493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Srivastava SB (2014) Bringing agency back into network research: Constrained agency and network action. Brass DJ, Labianca G, Mehra A, Halgin DS, Borgatti SP, eds. Contemporary Perspectives on Organizational Social Networks, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 40 (Emerald, Cambridge, MA), 73–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Sytch M (2007) Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer’s performance in procurement relationships. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(1):32–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guler I, Nerkar A (2012) The impact of global and local cohesion on innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management J. 33(5):535–549.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hahl O, Kacperczyk AO, Davis JP (2016) Knowledge asymmetry and brokerage: Linking network perception to position in structural holes. Strategic Organ. 14(2):118–143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halevy N, Halali E, Zlatev JJ (2019) Brokerage and brokering: An integrative review and organizing framework for third party influence. Acad. Management Ann. 13(1):215–239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hallen BL, Katila R, Rosenberger JD (2014) How do social defenses work? A resource-dependence lens on technology ventures, venture capital investors, and corporate relationships. Acad. Management J. 57(4):1078–1101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hamilton BH, Nickerson JA (2003) Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Strategic Organ. 1(1):51–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1):153–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R, Cockburn I (1996) Scale, scope, and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. RAND J. Econom. 27(1):32–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hernandez E, Lee JK, Shaver JM (2025) Toward an improved causal test of network effects: Does alliance network position enhance firm innovation? Strategic Management J. 46(4):863–897.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hess AM, Rothaermel FT (2011) When are assets complementary? Star scientists, strategic alliances, and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management J. 32(8):895–909.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hewitt LL (2005) Patent Infringement Litigation (Aspatore Books, Boston).Google Scholar
• Hoang H, Rothaermel FT (2005) The effect of general and partner-specific alliance experience on joint R&D project performance. Acad. Management J. 48(2):332–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoehn-Weiss MN, Karim S, Lee C-H (2017) Examining alliance portfolios beyond the dyads: The relevance of redundancy and nonuniformity across and between partners. Organ. Sci. 28(1):56–73.Link, Google Scholar
• Hsu DH, Lim K (2014) Knowledge brokering and organizational innovation: Founder imprinting effects. Organ. Sci. 25(4):1134–1153.Link, Google Scholar
• Iorio A (2022) Brokers in disguise: The joint effect of actual brokerage and socially perceived brokerage on network advantage. Admin. Sci. Quart. 67(3):769–820.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones SL, Leiponen A, Vasudeva G (2021) The evolution of cooperation in the face of conflict: Evidence from the innovation ecosystem for mobile telecom standards development. Strategic Management J. 42(4):710–740.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keller A, Lumineau F, Mellewigt T, Ariño A (2021) Alliance governance mechanisms in the face of disruption. Organ. Sci. 32(6):1542–1570.Link, Google Scholar
• Khanna R, Guler I, Nerkar A (2018) Entangled decisions: Knowledge interdependencies and terminations of patented inventions in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management J. 39(9):2439–2465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim T-Y, Oh H, Swaminathan A (2006) Framing interorganizational network change: A network inertia perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 31(3):704–720.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim JYR, Steensma HK, Heidl RA (2021) Clustering and connectedness: How inventor network configurations within incumbent firms influence their assimilation and absorption of new venture technologies. Acad. Management J. 64(5):1527–1552.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogan L, Papanikolaou D, Seru A, Stoffman N (2017) Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. Quart. J. Econom. 132(2):665–712.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D (1999) The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. Andrews SB, Knoke D, eds. Networks in and Around Organizations, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 16 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), 183–210.Google Scholar
• Kumar P, Zaheer A (2019) Ego-network stability and innovation in alliances. Acad. Management J. 62(3):691–716.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kumar P, Zaheer A (2022) Network stability: The role of geography and brokerage structure inequity. Acad. Management J. 65(4):1139–1168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kumar P, Liu X, Zaheer A (2022) How much does the firm’s alliance network matter? Strategic Management J. 43(8):1433–1468.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kwon S-W, Rondi E, Levin DZ, De Massis A, Brass DJ (2020) Network brokerage: An integrative review and future research agenda. J. Management 46(6):1092–1120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Labianca G, Brass DJ (2006) Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 31(3):596–614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2001) Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. RAND J. Econom. 32(1):129–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee JJ (2010) Heterogeneity, brokerage, and innovative performance: Endogenous formation of collaborative inventor networks. Organ. Sci. 21(4):804–822.Link, Google Scholar
• Lee JW, Quintane E, Lee SY, Ruiz CU, Kilduff M (2024) The strain of spanning structural holes: How brokering leads to burnout and abusive behavior. Organ. Sci. 35(1):177–194.Link, Google Scholar
• Lumineau F, Oxley JE (2012) Let’s work it out (or we’ll see you in court): Litigation and private dispute resolution in vertical exchange relationships. Organ. Sci. 23(3):820–834.Link, Google Scholar
• Lumineau F, Eckerd S, Handley S (2015) Inter-organizational conflicts: Research overview, challenges, and opportunities. J. Strategic Contracting Negotiation 1(1):42–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malhotra D, Lumineau F (2011) Trust and collaboration in the aftermath of conflict: The effects of contract structure. Acad. Management J. 54(5):981–998.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marineau JE, Labianca GJ, Kane GC (2016) Direct and indirect negative ties and individual performance. Soc. Networks 44:238–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marsden PV (1982) Brokerage behavior in restricted exchange networks. Marsden PV, Lin N, eds. Social Structure and Network Analysis (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA), 201–218.Google Scholar
• Marshall E (2000) Biotech giants butt heads over cancer drug. Science 288(5475):2303.Crossref, 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
• Miura H (2012) Stata graph library for network analysis. Stata J. 12(1):94–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oberschall A (1978) Theories of social conflict. Annual Rev. Sociol. 4(1):291–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Obstfeld D, Borgatti SP, Davis J (2014) Brokerage as a process: Decoupling third-party action from social network structure. Brass DJ, Labianca G, Mehra A, Halgin DS, Borgatti SP, eds. Contemporary Perspectives on Organizational Social Networks, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 40 (Emerald, Cambridge, MA), 135–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oxley JE, Sampson RC (2004) The scope and governance of international R&D alliances. Strategic Management J. 25(8–9):723–749.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ozmel U, Yavuz D, Reuer JJ, Zenger T (2017) Network prominence, bargaining power, and the allocation of value capturing rights in high-tech alliance contracts. Organ. Sci. 28(5):947–964.Link, Google Scholar
• Paruchuri S (2010) Intraorganizational networks, interorganizational networks, and the impact of central inventors: A longitudinal study of pharmaceutical firms. Organ. Sci. 21(1):63–80.Link, Google Scholar
• Patterson MR (2018) Confidentiality in patent dispute resolution: Antitrust implications. Washington Law Rev. 93(2):827–889.Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (2005) Status Signals (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Pollack A (2002) Chiron loses patent lawsuit against Genentech cancer drug. New York Times (September 7), https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/07/business/chiron-loses-patent-lawsuit-against-genentech-cancer-drug.html.Google Scholar
• Pollack A (2007) Amgen wins patent battle over Roche’s anemia drug. New York Times (October 24), https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/business/24amgen.html.Google Scholar
• Poppo L, Zenger T (2002) Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management J. 23(8):707–725.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(1):116–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell WW, White DR, Koput KW, Owen-Smith J (2005) Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. Amer. J. Sociol. 110(4):1132–1205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rawlings CM, Friedkin NE (2017) The structural balance theory of sentiment networks: Elaboration and test. Amer. J. Sociol. 123(2):510–548.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effect of cohesion and range. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2):240–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rein FH, Kessel AM (2006) Mylan v FDA: Another court decision in favour of ‘authorised generics’. J. Generic Medicines 4(1):46–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reuer JJ, Ariño A (2007) Strategic alliance contracts: Dimensions and determinants of contractual complexity. Strategic Management J. 28(3):313–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reuer JJ, Devarakonda SV (2016) Mechanisms of hybrid governance: Administrative committees in non-equity alliances. Acad. Management J. 59(2):510–533.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rhee L, Leonardi P (2024) Borrowing networks for innovation: The role of attention allocation in secondhand brokerage. Strategic Management J. 45(7):1326–1365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rider CI (2009) Constraints on the control benefits of brokerage: A study of placement agents in U.S. venture capital fundraising. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(4):575–601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ritala P, De Kort C, Gailly B (2023) Orchestrating knowledge networks: Alter-oriented brokering. J. Management 49(3):1140–1178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogan M (2014) Executive departures without client losses: The role of multiplex ties in exchange partner retention. Acad. Management J. 57(2):563–584.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogan M, Greve HR (2015) Resource dependence dynamics: Partner reactions to mergers. Organ. Sci. 26(1):239–255.Link, Google Scholar
• Roijakkers N, Hagedoorn J (2006) Inter-firm R&D partnering in pharmaceutical biotechnology since 1975: Trends, patterns, and networks. Res. Policy 35(3):431–446.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenkopf L, Almeida P (2003) Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Sci. 49(6):751–766.Link, Google Scholar
• Rothaermel FT (2001) Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent’s advantage: An empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry. Res. Policy 30(8):1235–1251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothaermel FT, Boeker W (2008) Old technology meets new technology: Complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation. Strategic Management J. 29(1):47–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA (2009) Understanding the alliance data. Strategic Management. J. 30(3):233–260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA, Phelps C (2007) Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Sci. 53(7):1113–1126.Link, Google Scholar
• Schmidt SM, Kochan TA (1972) Conflict: Toward conceptual clarity. Admin. Sci. Quart. 17(3):359–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shah RH, Swaminathan V (2008) Factors influencing partner selection in strategic alliances: The moderating role of alliance context. Strategic Management J. 29(5):471–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shipilov AV (2005) Should you bank on your network? Relational and positional embeddedness in the making of financial capital. Strategic Organ. 3(3):279–309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shipilov AV (2012) Strategic multiplexity. Strategic Organ. 10(3):215–222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shipilov AV, Li SX (2008) To have a cake and eat it too? Structural holes’ influence on status accumulation and market performance in collaborative networks. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(1):73–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shipilov AV, Li SX, Bothner MS, Truong N (2023) Network advantage: Uncontested structural holes and organizational performance in market crises. Strategic Management J. 44(13):3122–3154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simmel G (1950) The triad. Wolff KH, ed. The Sociology of Georg Simmel (Free Press, New York), 145–169.Google Scholar
• Simmel G (1955) Conflict and the Web of Group-Affiliations (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Singh J, Fleming L (2009) Lone inventors as sources of breakthroughs: Myth or reality? Management Sci. 56(1):41–56.Link, Google Scholar
• Soda GB, Mannucci PV, Burt R (2021) Networks, creativity, and time: Staying creative through brokerage and network rejuvenation. Acad. Management J. 64(4):1164–1190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Somaya D (2003) Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management J. 24(1):17–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stovel K, Shaw L (2012) Brokerage. Annual Rev. Sociol. 38(1):139–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stuart TE, Ozdemir SZ, Ding WW (2007) Vertical alliance networks: The case of university-biotechnology-pharmaceutical alliance chains. Res. Policy 36(4):477–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Subramanian AM, Lim K, Soh P-H (2013) When birds of a feather don’t flock together: Different scientists and the roles they play in biotech R&D alliances. Res. Policy 42(3):595–612.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sytch M, Tatarynowicz A (2014) Friends and foes: The dynamics of dual social structures. Acad. Management J. 57(2):585–613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sytch M, Tatarynowicz A, Gulati R (2012) Toward a theory of extended contact: The incentives and opportunities for bridging across network communities. Organ. Sci. 23(6):1658–1681.Link, Google Scholar
• Tasselli S, Kilduff M (2021) Network agency. Acad. Management Ann. 15(1):68–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tatarynowicz A, Sytch M, Gulati R (2016) Environmental demands and the emergence of social structure: Technological dynamism and interorganizational network forms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 61(1):52–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tiwana A (2008) Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management J. 29(3):251–272.Crossref, 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. Organ. Sci. 23(4):1024–1039.Link, Google Scholar
• Tortoriello M, Soda G, Gomez-Solorzano M (2025) The ties that nurture: Expressive Simmelian ties, instrumental brokerage, and individual performance. Acad. Management J., ePub ahead of print November 7, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2024.0234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B (1999) Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 64(4):481–505.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vaisey S, Miles A (2017) What you can—and can’t—do with three-wave panel data. Sociol. Methods Res. 46(1):44–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vasudeva G, Zaheer A, Hernandez E (2013) The embeddedness of networks: Institutions, structural holes, and innovativeness in the fuel cell industry. Organ. Sci. 24(3):645–663.Link, Google Scholar
• Vittinghoff E, Glidden DV, Shiboski SC, McCulloch CE (2005) Regression Methods in Biostatistics: Linear, Logistic, Survival, and Repeated Measures Models (Springer Publishing, New York).Google Scholar
• Weiswasser ES, Danzis SD (2003) The Hatch-Waxman Act: History, structure, and legacy. Antitrust Law J. 71(2):585–608.Google Scholar
• Whittington KB, Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2009) Networks, propinquity, and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(1):90–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (MIT Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Yang SW, Trincado F, Labianca GJ, Agneessens F (2019) Negative ties at work. Brass DJ, Borgatti SP, eds. Social Networks at Work (Taylor & Francis, London), 49–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zaheer A, Bell GG (2005) Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management J. 26(9):809–825.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zaheer A, Soda G (2009) Network evolution: The origins of structural holes. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(1):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhelyazkov PI, Tatarynowicz A (2021) Marriage of unequals? Investment quality heterogeneity, market heat, and the formation of status-asymmetric ties in the venture capital industry. Acad. Management J. 64(2):509–536.Crossref, Google Scholar