Search results

""A remarkably insightful read on what power is, how it's gained and lost, and how it can be used for good. The masterful analysis by two leading experts will make you rethink some of your most basic assumptions about influence" (Adam Grant, #1 New York Times bestselling author of Think Again)"--

To better understand the role of affect in organizational task-related networks, we developed a theory of affective primacy that identifies cognitive and motivational mechanisms through which the affective value of a social relationship (a feeling of positive affect from interactions with a colleague) operates as an antecedent of perceived instrumental value (a subjective evaluation of a relationship's contribution to accomplishing assigned tasks). We tested this theory with full-network data collected over three years from employees in a small functional-form organization, which we analyzed with a methodology drawing from the social relations model of interpersonal perception and Bayesian models for social network analysis. We found that, over time, the affective value of social relationships influences both perceptions of instrumental value and the formation of task-related ties through multiple paths not accounted for by either perceived instrumental value or formal-structural requirements. We also show that the emergence of task-related networks rests primarily on high-activation positive emotions, such as excitement (a subjective state of feeling energized) rather than positive emotions with lower levels of activation, such as pleasantness (a subjective state of feeling gratified). We discuss implications of these findings for organizational theory and managerial practice.

This paper examines the role of a person's generalized positive or negative feelings toward someone (interpersonal affect) in task-related networks in organizations. We theorize that negative interpersonal affect renders task competence virtually irrelevant in a person's choice of a partner for task interactions but that positive interpersonal affect increases a person's reliance on competence as a criterion for choosing task partners, facilitating access to organizational resources relevant to the task. Using social psychological models of interpersonal perception and hierarchical Bayesian models, we find support for this theory in social network data from employees in three organizations: an entrepreneurial computer technology company, staff personnel at an academic institution, and employees in a large information technology corporation. The results suggest that competence may be irrelevant not just when outright dislike colors a relationship. Across organizational contexts and types of task-related interaction, people appear to need active liking to seek out the task resources of potential work partners and fully tap into the knowledge that resides in organizations. We discuss contributions of our study to research on the interplay of psychological and structural dimensions of organizational life.

Despite ubiquitous references to Pfeffer and Salancik's classic volume, The External Control of Organizations, resource dependence theory is more of an appealing metaphor than a foundation for testable empirical research. We argue that several ambiguities in the resource dependence model account in part for this and propose a reformulation of resource dependence theory that addresses these ambiguities, yields novel predictions and findings, and reconciles them with seemingly contradictory empirical evidence from past studies. We identify two distinct theoretical dimensions of resource dependence, power imbalance and mutual dependence, which in the original theory were combined in the construct of interdependence and yet have opposite effects on an organization's ability to reduce dependencies by absorbing sources of external constraint. Results from a study of interindustry mergers and acquisitions among U.S. public companies in the period 1985–2000 indicate that, while mutual dependence is a key driver of mergers and acquisitions, power imbalance acts as an obstacle to their formation. We conclude that our reformulation of the resource dependence model contributes to realizing the potential of resource dependency as a powerful explanation of interorganizational action.

In this paper, we examine the consequences of social networking for an individual's morality, arguing that the content and approach of networking have different implications for how a person feels during the development and maintenance of social ties. We focus in particular on professional-instrumental networking: the purposeful creation of social ties in support of task and professional goals. Unlike personal networking in pursuit of emotional support or friendship, and unlike social ties that emerge spontaneously, instrumental networking in pursuit of professional goals can impinge on an individual's moral purity—a psychological state that results from viewing the self as clean from a moral standpoint—and thus make an individual feel dirty. We theorize that such feelings of dirtiness decrease the frequency of instrumental networking and, as a result, work performance. We conducted four studies using both field and laboratory data from different populations to investigate the psychological consequences of networking behaviors. Two experiments provide support for a causal relationship between instrumental networking for professional goals, feeling dirty, and need for cleansing. A survey study of lawyers in a large North American business law firm offers correlational evidence that professionals who experience feelings of dirtiness from instrumental networking, relative to those who do not, tend to engage in it less frequently and have lower job performance. With regard to sources of variability in dirtiness from instrumental networking for professional goals, we document that when those who engage in such networking have high versus low power, they experience fewer feelings of dirtiness. An additional experimental study constructively replicates this finding.

Although multiple disciplines have been applied to the study of organizations, organizational research is rarely interdisciplinary in the sense of two or more disciplines being linked in the joint analysis of organizational phenomena. The articles in this special issue illustrate the kinds of insights that can be gained by moving from a purely disciplinary perspective on organizational behavior to an interdisciplinary perspective that considers network phenomena and psychological phenomena as intertwined in organizational life. The advances of this special forum notwithstanding, large swaths of network–psychological integration are still largely unexplored in organizational research. We highlight a subset of particularly promising avenues for further interdisciplinary exploration. We also observe that the two research programs have developed into distinct paradigms, making interdisciplinary discourse challenging, and offer suggestions toward a greater integration and collaboration across the two research communities.