Utilizing a grounded-theory approach, this study examines 8 organizations and finds that social networks make a difference in the capability of organizations to implement fundamental organizational change. Specifically, this study examines whether networks enable the learning required for local units to develop the new schemata—understandings, behaviors, and interaction patterns—required to adopt and appropriate planned organization-wide change. A mixture of organization-wide and local learning networks in organizations successfully implemented change, whereas the unsuccessful organizations relied primarily on hierarchical change implementation networks. In accelerated change units compared to those that are lagging, a greater abundance and diversity of networks, strong and weak, internal and external, and across system levels were found. These network connections facilitate change implementation not only by sharing information but also by providing the capabilities to exchange and combine knowledge and by enabling local self-design.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In E. Lesser (Ed.), Knowledge and social capital: Foundations and applications (pp. 89-115). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
2.
Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78-108.
4.
Barley, S. R. (1990). The alignment of technology and structure through rules and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 61-103.
5.
Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 187-218.
6.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
7.
Chesmore, C., & Tenkasi, R. V. (2002, August). Social networks and planned organizational change: A study of the impact of inter-unit ties' strength between and within intra-organizational networks in effective change implementation and use. Paper presented at the annual Academy of Management meetings, Denver, CO.
8.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
Constant, D., Kiesler, S. B., & Sproull, L. S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.
10.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2001). Organization development and change (7th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
11.
Davis, G. F. (1991). Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 583-613.
12.
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3, 179-202.
13.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case-study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 488-511.
14.
Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1411-1454.
15.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Winfield and Nicholson.
18.
Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105-130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19.
Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-111.
20.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2000). Online personal networks. New Media and Society, 2(2), 195-226.
21.
Kraatz, M. S. (1998). Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 621-643.
22.
Krackhardt, D. (1994). Graph theoretical dimensions of informal organizations. In K. Carley & M. Prietula (Eds.), Computational organizational theory (pp. 211-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Krackhardt, D. (1997). Organizational viscosity and diffusion of controversial innovations. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 22, 177-199.
24.
Ledford, G. E., Jr., Mohrman, S. A., Mohrman, A. M., Jr., & Lawler, E. E., III. (1989). The phenomenon of large-scale organizational change. In A. M. Mohrman, Jr., S. A. Mohrman, G. E. Ledford, Jr., T. G. Cummings, & E. E. Lawler, III (Eds.), Large-scale organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
27.
Palmer, D., Friedland, R., & Singh, J. V. (1986). The ties that bind: Organizational and class bases of stability in a corporate interlock network. American Sociological Review, 51(6), 781-797.
28.
Pasmore, W. A. (1988). Designing effective organizations: The socio-technical systems perspective. New York: John Wiley.
29.
Perlmutter, H. V., & Trist, E. (1986). Paradigms for societal transition. Human Relations, 39, 1-27.
30.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1966)
31.
Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-147.
32.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
Stevenson, W., & Greenberg, D. (2000). Agency and social networks: Strategies of action in a social structure of position, opposition, and opportunity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 651-678.
34.
Tenkasi, R. V., & Mohrman, S. A. (1999). Global change as contextual-collaborative knowledge creation. In D. L. Cooperrider & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Organizational dimensions of global change (pp. 114-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
Tenkasi, R. V., Mohrman, S. A., & Mohrman, A. M., Jr. (1998). Accelerated learning during organizational transition. In S. A. Mohrman, J. R. Galbraith, E. E. Lawler, III, & Associates (Eds.), Tomorrow's organization: Crafting winning capabilities in a dynamic world (pp. 330-361). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 996-1004.
37.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 464-476.
38.
Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674-698.
39.
Weick, K. E. (1993). Organizational redesign as improvisation. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving performance (pp. 346-382). New York: Oxford Press.
40.
Weick, K. E. (1997). Organizations as self-designing systems. Organizational Dynamics, 6(2), 30-46.
