Managing Your Portfolio of Connections
Traditionally, a company’s links to its customers, suppliers and other external parties have been based upon either arm’s-length transactions or socially embedded ties. Electronic technologies have enabled a third and more flexible option, dubbed “virtually embedded ties.”
Companies succeed or fail based on their dealings with others. They purchase raw materials, equipment and parts from suppliers. They sell their own goods and services to distributors, resellers and customers. And they might rely on partners, alliances and industry consortia to provide them with crucial technology or expertise. Indeed, the ability to manage connections to external parties has long been a critical competency for any organization doing business. See sidebar
Recently, that capability has become increasingly difficult to maintain. Globalization, international networks of companies and various competitive pressures have made out-sourcing, supply chains and customer relationships ever more complex and demanding to manage. At the same time, electronic communications and computer technologies have greatly broadened the possibilities for how organizations might establish and manage such an array of external connections.
In addition to traditional types of connections, such as those facilitated by social relationships, companies now have a new option: “virtually embedded ties,” which are initiated and maintained through electronic technologies like the Internet. Today, organizations should know how best to deploy such connections, and just as importantly, they need to recognize situations in which more traditional ties are the better option for conducting their business transactions.
References
1. M.T. Dacin, M.J. Ventresca and B.D. Beal, “The Embeddedness of Organizations: Dialogue and Directions,” Journal of Management 25 (1999): 317–356; M.S. Granovetter, “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness,” American Journal of Sociology 91 (1985): 481–510; and S. Zukin and P. DiMaggio, “Structures of Capital: The Social Organization of the Economy” (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
2. R. Burt, “The Network Structure of Social Capital,” in “Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22,” eds. R.I. Sutton and B.M. Staw (Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 2000), 345–423; and M.S. Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology 78 (1973): 1360–1380.
3. S. Birley, “The Role of Networks in Entrepreneurial Process,” Journal of Business Venturing 1 (1985): 107–117; R. Burt, “The Network Structure of Social Capital,” in “Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 22,” eds. R.I. Sutton and B.M. Staw (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 2000), 345–423; B. Uzzi, “Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness,” Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (1997): 35–67; and B. Uzzi, “Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing,” American Sociological Review 64 (1999): 481–505.
4. S.W. Fowler, T.B. Lawrence and E.A. Morse, “Virtually Embedded Ties,” Journal of Management 30 (2004): 647–666.
5. M.S. Granovetter, “Problems of Explanation in Economic Sociology,” in “Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action,” eds. N. Nohria and R. Eccles (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992), 25–56; and R.D. Putnam, “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital,” Journal of Democracy 6 (1995): 65–78.
6. B. Uzzi, “Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing,” American Sociological Review 64 (1999): 481–505.
7. J.P. Barlow, “The Economy of Ideas,” Wired, March 1994, 85–101; and B. Gates, “Everyone, Anytime, Anywhere: The Next Step for Technology Is Universal Access,” Forbes ASAP, Oct. 4, 1999, www.microsoft.com/presspass/ofnote/10-04forbes.asp.
8.A. Larson, “Network Dyads in Entrepreneurial Settings: A Study of the Governance of Exchange Relationships,” Administrative Science Quarterly 37 (1992): 76–104; and B. Uzzi, “Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness,” Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (1997): 35–67.
9. B. Uzzi, “Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness,” Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (1997): 35–67.
10. U. Andersson, M. Forsgren and U. Holm, “Subsidiary Embeddedness and Competence Development in MNCs — A Multi-Level Analysis,” Organization Studies 22 (2001): 1013–1034; T. Rowley, D. Behrens and D. Krackhardt, “Redundant Governance Structures: An Analysis of Structural and Relational Embeddedness in the Steel and Semiconductor Industries,” Strategic Management Journal 21 (2000): 369–386; and B. Uzzi, “Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness,” Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (1997): 35–67.
11. C.M. Christensen, “The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail” (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997); and A.J. Hoffman, “Institutional Evolution and Change: Environmentalism and the U.S. Chemical Industry,” Academy of Management Journal 42 (1999): 351–371.
12. T. Rowley, D. Behrens and D. Krackhardt, “Redundant Governance Structures: An Analysis of Structural and Relational Embeddedness in the Steel and Semiconductor Industries,” Strategic Management Journal 21 (2000): 369–386; and H. Yli-Renko, E. Autio and H.J. Sapienza, “Social Capital, Knowledge Acquisition, and Knowledge Exploitation in Young Technology-Based Firms,” Strategic Management Journal 22 (2001): 587–613.