Alvin Gouldner wrote the article, “Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles” in 1957 to propose that through the 1950s latent roles had been seriously overlooked by scholars. Manifest roles, described as those roles and role identities that are directly related to one’s defined position in the organizational structure, had been the sole focus. Latent roles comprised the complementary roles that members made salient but were not officially recognized. Instead, managers might dismiss such roles as “irrelevant, inappropriate, or illegitimate” to recognize formally despite them being essential in the organization’s social fabric
For our 100th episode, we look outward toward the various fields of study that have fed into our podcast – organization studies, organization theory, management science, and others – and ask how strong or healthy those fields are. The disciple has, after all, gotten very big with thousands of scholars around the world doing important field work, research, and consultancy projects. But it has also become more fragmented and is experiencing the stresses and strains of a mature profession. So in this one-part reflection, we think about what we have learned so far in 100 episodes stretching over 7-1/2 years and where we might like to see the field go in the coming years.
This month’s episode examines war and how principles derived from it are presently applied to other organizational and management contexts. Sun Tzu’s The Art of War is an ancient text that emerged from the Warring States period that lasted from the 5th through 3rd centuries B.C. and engulfed most of modern mainland China. It embraced the complexity of the environment of war, which therefore has allowed it to be adapted for navigating other forms of complexity such as business competition. We examine the text in its original context to illustrate the need to understand the purpose and utility of classic texts.
Granovetter’s 1973 article, “The Strength of Weak Ties,” introduced whole new ways of thinking about seemingly simple and straightforward topics and changed the direction of social research. He showed how “weak” ties, occasional connections between individuals among different networks, were powerful means for providing opportunities and new ideas not otherwise available. He also charted a way for researchers to connect micro-level interactions with macro-level patterns. Given how social networking has changed so much between social media and the pandemic, we decided to give this article a fresh look.
We discuss a critique of business education -- Sumantra Ghoshal’s article from the Academy of Management Learning and Education, “Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management Practices.” He describes a feedback loop between schools and practitioners that has led to theories based on a “pretense of knowledge” that assumes causality and predictability of the business environment and a “gloomy vision” that assumes the worst of human nature. In effect, theories are built around ideas that managers cannot be trusted and matters of complexity can be managed through mathematical models, setting ethics and morals aside. A great think piece for considering the roles of business schools and professional education!
What is power and influence? Although power appears as a multilevel concept, the early organizational literature tended to view it as wielded by people–measured as skills, traits, or competencies. This would change in the 1980s, in large part to a classic empirical study providing evidence that one’s position within an organizational structure was more likely to translate into one’s source of power. Dan Brass’ article, “Being in the Right Place: A Structural Analysis of Individual Influence in an Organization” from Administrative Science Quarterly is the subject of this episode.
Brass studied the relative positions of 140 non-supervisory members of a newspaper publishing company. His mixed-methods approach included a number of variables such as criticality, transaction alternatives, and centrality (access and control) in the social networks of the organization. The results showed that connections in workflow, communication, and friendship networks resulted in greater perceptions of influence by others. Such individuals were also more likely to be promoted within the organization. Workers in some specialized or boundary-spanning positions were well-postured to gain influence by maintaining broader social networks than one’s duties would normally require.
The impact of the article is still significant today, as the structural perspective on individual influence is now generally accepted. It also kickstarted a long and industrious career for Brass who has written extensively on social network(ing), power, and influence to the present day.
Joining us in the studio for this episode is Sarah Otner, a junior research fellow at the Imperial College in London. Giving credit where due, it was Sarah’s suggestion that we cover this theme as it has greatly influenced her work. After this episode, we believe you too will be convinced that this article is deserving of being called a “classic.”
Part 1. On Power, Influence, and Networks (and the Growth of ASQ)
Part 2. In What Way Were Brass’ Findings Surprising?
Betancourt, N., Kovacs, B., & Otner, S. (2018). The perception of status: How we infer the status of others from their social relationships. Network Science, 6(3), 319-347.
Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013.
Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 795-817.
Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.
Friedkin, N. E. (2006). A structural theory of social influence (Vol. 13). Cambridge University Press.
Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471-501.
Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 56-87.
Kleinbaum, A. M. (2012). Organizational misfits and the origins of brokerage in intrafirm networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(3), 407-452.
Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 342-369.
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social Hierarchy: The self‐reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-398.
Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2010). Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 317-357.
Otner, S. M. (2018). Near-winners in status competitions: Neglected sources of dynamism in the Matthew Effect. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(4), 374-377.
Do you enjoy Talking About Organizations? Please consider contributing through Buymeacoffee.com/taop!
Also from the Talking About Organizations Network!
