Social Network Analysis for Organizations

Author(s): Noel M. Tichy, Michael L. Tushman, Charles Fombrun

Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Oct., 1979), pp. 507-519
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/257851
Accessed: 10/03/2009 01:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Review.

http://www.jstor.org

Academyof ManagementReview 1979, Vol.4, No. 4, 507-519

Network

Social
For

Analysis
Organizations1
NOEL M. TICHY
MICHAELL. TUSHMAN
Columbia University
CHARLES FOMBRUN
University of Pennsylvania

This article introduces the social network approach - its origins, key
concepts, and methods. We argue for its use in organizationalsettings
and apply the network approach in a comparative analysis of two
organizations.
organizations in society as a system of objects (e.g.
people, groups, organizations) joined by a variety of
relationships. Not all pairs of objects are directly
joined, and some are joined by multiple relationships. Network analysis is concerned with the structure and patterning of these relationships and seeks
to identify both their causes and consequences.
The multilevel applicability of the network perspec-

Organizations can be viewed as social groupings

with relatively stable patterns of interaction over
time [Katz & Kahn, 1966; Weick, 1969]. Such a

model of organizing, if it is to move beyond the

metaphorical stage, requires a coherent framework

and accompanying methods of analysis that are
capable of capturing both prescribed and emergent
processes. The social network perspective is an
example of a theoretical framework that has developed to the point of guiding data collection as
well as data analysis. With current methods, network data can be organized and examined to
capture significant organizational processes at different levels of analysis. The social network perspective is thus capable of linking the micro and
macro approaches to organization behavior [Crozier, 1972].
In defining social networks we start with Mitchell's
view: "a specific set of linkages among a defined set
of persons, with the additional property that the
characteristics of these linkages as a whole may be
used to interpret the social behavior of the persons
involved" [1969, p. 2].
In addition, the social network approach views

tive suggests that it can add insight to several

content areas. At the organizational level, communication studies [Porter & Roberts, 1976; Tushman,
1977], and work on power and political processes
[Pettigrew, 1972; Zald, 1970] could benefit from a
network formulation. Similarly, the evolving work on
careers [Grannovetter, 1974] and socialization
[Edstrom & Galbraith, 1977] could be refined by
investigating the evolving networks of information
and influence that individuals are embedded in. At
the interorganizational level, the web of direct and
indirect relationships between organizations could
be made more explicit by a network approach [Aldrich, 1977; Evan, 1966; Pennings, 1978].

The Social Network Framework

Since the development of systems ideas [Katz &
Kahn, 1966; Thompson, 1967], organization theorists have focused on the interaction of organizational conditions and organizational processes in

1We are grateful for the helpful criticisms provided by Charles

Kadushin and Mary Anne DeVanna. Also, we express our
thanks to Diana Pheysey and Roy Payne for the data used in
the case example..
? 1979 by the Academyof Management 0363-7425
507

explicitly in network terms. Finally, the network approach has been a tradition in community power
studies, rural anthropology [Mitchell, 1969; Boissevain, 1974], and in the research and development
management literature [Allen, 1977].
In short, although the combination of theory and
research shows that there has been interest in a

producing behavior. However, while some conceptual models of organizational behavior are process
oriented [Child, 1972; Weick, 1969], the methods
used to tap these processes have been static in
nature (except, of course, for case studies). There
has, therefore, been a disjuncture between the
frameworks used to conceptualize organizations
and the methods used to capture organizational
complexity. Network analysis is one method of conceptualizing organizations that captures the intersection of both static and dynamic aspects of
organizations by focusing on the linkages between
social objects over time.

Table 1
NetworkProperties
Property
A. Transactional Content

Explanation
Four types of exchange:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Origins and Perspective

The network approach is not new. Its conceptual
origins can be traced to three broad schools of
thought.
1. Sociology: the process outlook of theorists
like Park [1924] and Cooley [1956], and fathered by
Simmel [1950], emphasized patterns of interaction
and communication as the key to understanding social life. The popularity of functionalism [Parsons,
1960; Mitchell, 1969] led to a consolidation of the
viewpoint with a focus on the underlying determinants of recurring social relations.
2. Anthropology: the exchange theories of LeviStrauss [1969], Malinowski [1922], and Frazer
[1919] emphasized the content of the relationships
joining individuals, the conditions under which they
would exist, and the evolution of these bonds over
time [Homans, 1961; Blau, 1964; Ekeh, 1974].
3. Role Theory: Katz and Kahn [1966] define
organizations as "fish nets" of interrelated offices.
Although role systems imply network concepts, the
literature on role analysis has been limited to firstorder role sets (individuals directly linked to the
focal person) and evidences an individual bias
[Kadushin, 1968; Gross, Mason, & McEachern,
1958].
On the empirical side, Whyte [1955] and Chapple
and Sales [1961] were among the earliest organization researchers to use network concepts. The
large-scale studies of voting behavior and the diffusion of innovations subsumed network concepts
[Katz & Lazersfeld, 1955; Coleman, Katz, & Menzel, 1957; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971]. On the
experimental side, the studies of Bavelas [1951]
and Leavitt [1951] conceived of group structure

B. Nature of the Links

1 Intensity

The strength of the relation between

individuals.

2 Reciprocity

The degree to which a relation is

commonly perceived and agreed on by
all parties to the relation (i.e., the
degree of symmetry).

3 Clarity of Expectations

The degree to which every pair of

individuals has clearly defined expectations
about each other's behavior in the relation

4. Multiplexity

The degree to which pairs of individuals

are linked by multiple relations.

C. Structural Characteristics
1 Size

508

expression of affect
influence attempt
exchange of information
exchange of goods or services

The number of individuals participating

in the network.

2 Density (Connectedness)

The number of actual links in the

network as a ratio of the number of
possible links.

3 Clustering

The number of dense regions in the

network.

4 Openness

The number of actual external links of a

social unit as a ratio of the number
of possible extemal links.

5. Stability

The degree to which a network pattem

changes over time.

6. Reachability

The average number of links between

any two individuals in the network.

7 Centrality

The degree to which relations are guided

by the formal hierarchy.

8. Star

The individualwith the highest number

of nominations.

9. Liaison

An individualwho is not a member of

a cluster but links two or more clusters.

10. Bridge

An individualwho is a member of multiple

clusters in the network (linkingpin).

11. Gatekeeper

A star who also links the social unit

with exteral domains.

12. Isolate

An individualwho has uncoupled from

the network.

3. Clarity of expectations: the degree to which

individuals agree about appropriate behavior in
their relations to one another.
4. Multiplexity: individuals have multiple roles,
such as worker, husband, community member, and
group member. Multiplexityidentifies the degree to
which a pair is linked by multiple roles. The more
role requirements linkingone person to another, the
stronger the linkage.
Structural characteristics
Structural characteristics can be divided into four levels:
1. External network: in what ways is the focal
unit linked with external domains? Given some
external linkage, in what ways is the set of actors
linked [Aldrich& Herker, 1977; Pennings, 1978].
2. Total internal network: given a set of actors
that make up the network, in what ways are they
linked?
3. Clusters within the network: areas of the network where actors are more closely linked to each
other than they are to the rest of the network are
termed clusters [Boissevain, 1974]. There are various types of clusters: formally prescribed work
groups, emergent coalitions, and cliques. A coalition is a temporary alliance of actors who come
together for a limited purpose [Thibaut & Kelley,
1959]. Cliques are more permanent informal associations and exist for a broader range of purposes
- e.g., task, social, and career [Burns & Stalker,
1961; Tushman, 1979; Tichy, 1973].
4. Individuals as special nodes within the network: not all individuals are equally important in
social networks. Key nodes exist to link a focal unit
to other areas within the organization (liaison), as
well as to areas outside the organization (gatekeepers). Individuals can also be uncoupled from
the rest of the network (isolates) [Schwartz & Jacobson, 1977; Tushman, 1977].
Table 1 presents a set of indices describing the
structural characteristics of networks. These properties can be used at each of the three levels of
analysis. For instance, connectedness can refer to
the extent to which several organizations are interrelated, or the extent to which persons within an
organization are interrelated.
In sum, the social network perspective views organizations as consisting of social units with relatively stable patterns of relationships over time. The

network approach, there has yet to emerge a comprehensive model based on network thinking that is
capable of guiding our understandings of social
and, in particular, organizational processes.
Social Network Concepts
Table 1 lists some elementary network properties
that will be used in this article. The intent is to
familiarize readers with accepted terminology and
provide a common set of tools.
Three sets of properties of networks are of particular interest:
A. Transactional Content: what is exchanged
by the social objects. For instance, two employees
may exchange information or affect.
B. Nature of the Links: this property refers to the
strength and qualitative nature of the relation between two social objects.
C. Structural Characteristics: this property refers to the overall pattern of relationships between
the system's actors. For instance, clustering, network density, and the existence of special nodes in
the network are all structural characteristics.
What is exchanged
Transactional content
when two actors are linked? Four types of transactional contents can be distinguished: (1) exchange
of affect (liking, friendship), (2) exchange of influence or power, (3) exchange of information, and (4)
exchange of goods or services.
Social networks can, then, be developed for each
content type. These networks may or may not overlap and an individual's position in the networks may
vary. For example, the information exchange network might be decentralized and fully connected,
while the influence network might be centralized,
with interactions mediated by the formal supervisor
[Katz & Tushman, 1979].
Nature of the links
The linkages between
pairs of individuals can be described in terms of
several characteristics:
1. Intensity: the strength of the relation as indicated by the degree to which individuals honor obligations or forego personal costs to carry out obligations [Mitchell, 1969], or by the number of contacts
in a unit of time.
2. Reciprocity: the degree to which individuals
report the same (or similar) intensities with each
other for a content area.
509

traditional formal/informal dichotomy is reflected in

these relationships and the framework makes it
possible to compare and contrast formally prescribed and emergent relationships in a coherent
fashion. Organizations can then be seen as made
up of both prescribed and emergent groupings,
each with its own structural characteristics. These
groupings can be described in terms of their interrelations as well as their relations with external
domains. Further, the network perspective suggests that the networks may well be different over
different content areas; and it provides a vehicle for
linking these networks over multiple levels of
analysis.

gate cause map, or an intra-individual network

[Bougon, Weick, & Binkhardt, 1977].
For the most part, however, network analysis
relies heavily on sociometric data. Sociometry is a
method for ascertaining the relationship between
units. The degree (often merely the presence or
absence of a relation) to which each unit is related
to all other units is mapped. When the relationships
between all units are mapped, a graph or sociogram
displays the network of relationships [Kadushin,
1970]. Sociometric data are deceptive. They are
easy to collect, yet once they are collected, there
are immense difficulties in analysis.
Data Collection

Network Analysis Methods

Table 2 presents four basic network data collection methods, with their major strengths and weaknesses. These trade-offs should be weighed in the
context of research requirements.
Positional analysis
This method entails the
use of formal organizational data, often reflected in
an organization chart, which details prescribed reporting or communication lines. Positional data are
the easiest type to collect because most organiza-

Different types of data can be used in network

analysis. On the objective level, data on shared
attributes can be used. For instance, interorganizational theorists would argue that two organizations
are related if they share a director or if they exchange employees [Pennings, 1978; Levine, 1972].
On the subjective level, individuals can be asked to
interrelate a series of factors to arrive at an aggre-

Table 2
and
Weaknesses of
Strengths
Data Collection Methods
Method

Weaknesses

Strengths

1. Positional Analysis (Formal

Communication/Influence)

Easy Access

Least accurate
Must be used with other methods

2. Reputational/Attributional

Simplicity of design and

data collection
Can deal with multiple networks
Limitedsample size

Taps only perceived networks

Status bias often built in
Specification of where to cut off "snowball" often arbitrary
No way to choose "right"issues
Questions of reliabilitywith data

3. Decisional Analysis

Reconstructs networks
Can deal with multiple networks
Issue specific

Ignores indirect, subtle influence

Definitionof key issues important
Choice of issues important
Problems with managing "snowball" sample

4. Interactional Analysis

Benefits of all the

above approaches
Easy to gather
Reliabilityof data

Definitionof boundaries
Need for high returnrate (total universe needed)
Costly to manage and administer
Requires high commitment on part of respondent,
also high trust

510

tions have them formally mapped out. However,

this is the least informative of all network methods
because it fails to tap the actual ongoing processes
of the organization. Positional analysis is most appropriately used as an indication of the prescribed
network.

interested in the reputedly powerful; they would

rather select a number of key issues, identify the
participants in decision making, determine outcomes, and then appraise relative influence. This
approach has been used during actual decision
processes [Pettigrew, 1973; Banfield, 1961] and
retrospectively [Wildavsky, 1964; Baldridge, 1971].
The benefits of the decisional method lie in its
concreteness: overt behavior is studied. Leaders
can be empirically distinguished from the "2nd
stringers," content overlap can be easily investigated, if a number of issues are studied, precise
linkages can be found, and the sequencing of influence can be traced. Yet the concreteness is also
a source of problems. More specifically, this method has been criticized (1) for neglecting indirectand
subtle decision influence, (2) for its potential lack of
generalizability, (3) for the difficultyof defining key
issues, (4) for its complexity in time and energy, and
(5) for its neglect of the nondecision-making process, such that only "safe" issues are studied [Anton, 1963; Bachrach & Baratz, 1962].
Both the reputational and decisional. analysis
methods have generated much heat and rhetoric,
and each typically finds different sets of influentials
and power/influence networks [Polsby, 1963]. Yet
as Freeman and his colleagues [1963] and Presthus [1965] observe, both approaches taken together give a more complete picture of the influence
or communication network. The reputational method highlights key actors in the decision, while
decisional analysis highlights the substance and
intensity of the influence process. It is in this dual
use that there is relevance for organizational studies. Decisional analyses may be more appropriate
in simple organizations, and the dual approach will
probably be more effective for more differentiated
systems [Clark, 1968].
The last approach to be discussed can be seen
as an adaptation of the decisional and reputational
methods in that it gets at attributionsof communication and influence.

This
Reputational / attributional method
method has been used to study community power
[Rose, 1968; Hunter, 1953]. Because overt behavior portrays an incomplete picture of influence, this
method attempts to get behind the scenes by using
judgments of selected community members as to
"who are the top leaders" or "who are the most
influential persons in your community." Persons
most frequently selected constitute the "first-rate
leaders." Given these elites, the method goes on to
investigate, through interviews, the influence or
communication networks [Hunter, 1953]. Hunter
simply asked for general "influentials," but others
[Perrow, 1970; Clark, 1968] have used this method
for studying individuals influential in specific areas.
Since Hunter's study, this technique has created
much controversy, both with respect to the method
and the community-elite interpretations [Rose,
1968, pp. 257-277].
Supporters of the method note its simplicity in
design, replicability, validity, and potential sensitivity to influence in different decision-making areas
[Herson, 1961]. The method captures perceived
power, and there is evidence that perceived and
exerted influence are highly related [Gamson,
1966]. Its detractors note that the "elitist methods"
wrongly equate reputed with actual power, are inherently static, are biased by asking the wrong
questions (i.e., "who runs the community"), and
have operational cut-offs that are not defendable
(i.e., panel selection, number of elites). Wolfinger
[1962] and Dahl [1958] go into detail on these
points.
Decisional analysis
This approach, advocated by Dahl and his followers [e.g., Polsby, 1963;
Wolfinger, 1962], criticizes both positional and
reputational methods as ineffective means for ascertaining influence networks. Decisional analysis
highlights "the process of decision making as the
nucleus of the phenomenon of power, and it is this
process that is the object of research" [Dahl, 1963,
p. 53]. Those using decisional analysis are not

Interactional methods
In this approach, the
flow of interactions (or influences) and their feedback is the central focus, and power is taken to be a
constraint guiding these flows [Clark, 1968]. The
communication or influence networks are derived
from either time series or single-point surveys ad511

ministered to the whole system. Individualsare

asked to report their interactionsor influence attempts over the period studied and for particular
content areas [Frey, 1976; Barnes, 1969; Brams,
1968]. Withthese data, interactionnets and power
relations can then be determined [Brams, 1968;
Barnes, 1969].
There are many ways of collecting this type of
data. The most general formatasks respondentsto
summarize their interactions- for example: "Ina
normalweek, who are the people you interactwith
to get your workdone?" To reduce bias caused by
asking respondents to summarize, one can ask
respondents to keep a log of theiractivitiesfor selected days. These real-timedata yield more accurate information;however, this approach calls for
considerably more data-managementtime [Tushman, 1979a; 1979b]. Unobtrusive methods can
also be used to collect interactionnetworkdata.
Appointment calendars, telephone bills, memos,
letters, and minutes of meetings can all provide
sociometric data. Finally, as was illustratedby
Whyte [1955], observational methods are yet another way to collect interactionalsociometricdata.
Although interactionalmethods get directly at
influence/interactionprocesses, they do have difficulties and limitations.These include:the assumption of a closed system (or at least of a bounded
system), the necessity fora highresponse rate,and
- if more detailed informationis desired (e.g., intensity, content) - the increased interviewingor
observationalexpense.
Each of these fourdata-collectionstrategies has
its strengths and weaknesses (see Table 2). Accordingly,investigatorswillhave to tailortheirdatacollection strategy to fit their research requirements. However, multiplemethods will,in general,
providethe most comprehensiveviewof the system

the matrix were considered the building blocks of

the informal structure. Owing to the lack of an integrating theory and a sophisticated network methodology, sociometric research was largely ignored
for two decades [Rogers & Rogers, 1976, p. 124].
In the late 1960s network analysis resurfaced as
a tool for studying communication patterns. The
increasing acceptance of the systems paradigm,
formulated in the context of organizations [Katz &
Kahn, 1966], instigated a series of dissertations
with communication as the core dependent variable
[Schwartz, 1977]. At MIT, Allen began investigations into the communication networks of R and D
laboratories [Allen & Cohen, 1969]. Roberts and her
colleagues have also been applying network concepts to studies of communication [Roberts &
O'Reilly, 1976; O'Reilly & Pondy, 1979].
data
Difficulties in analyzing sociometric
The methodological difficulties of dealing with sociometric data are exacerbated because of a paradox. The collection of sociometric data makes a

great deal of intuitivesense; it is tied to a conven-

tional view of the world - whom you know, whom

you speak to, and so forth. Itis also extremely easy
to collect. The result is that investigators can easily
gather an overabundance of data.
Assume that data are collected - say from 100
people in an organization - concerning who influences them most on work matters. What should the
researcher do with the data? Clearly, the standard
tools of regression, discriminant, or factor analysis
are not readily applicable. What approaches does
the researcher need to work with? Some of the
questions that the researcher might want to answer
are: Are there individuals who do not influence anyone? Are there individuals who influence a disproportionate number of people? What are the linkages between the most influential individuals?
With answers to these questions, our researcher
might begin to draw lines around groups of individuals who influence each other more than they do
anyone else; he or she might point out some individuals who are isolates within their groups and
others who are strongly interconnected, and thereby derive characteristics of the organization's social
structure. By hand, of course, the task is a weighty
one and one besieged with problems such that
Kadushin [1978] reports that in a secondary analysis of a sample of published sociograms, none with

[Kadushin, 1968; Baldridge, 1971].

Network Methodology and the Analysis of Data
There have been few large-scale network studies
of organizations. The earliest studies date back to
the work of the Michigan group in the 1950s [Jacobson & Seashore, 1951; Weiss & Jacobson, 1955].
Using matrix permutation techniques [Forsythe &
Katz, 1946], they analyzed communication patterns
in the U.S. Office of Naval Research. The subgroupings or cliques that gradually emerged within
512

is chosen by the user). This plot tries to represent

the network in space in such a way that the distances between points are scaled to the social
proximitiesbetween individuals[Alba& Gutmann,
1972]. Unfortunately,the fit is only monotonically
accurate and the plot is nonlinear.The configuration can be useful, however, since it allows forvisually identifyingisolates and making preliminary
guesses at the groupstructure.
The other set of methods is grounded in graph
theory and follows Luce and Perry's[1949]seminal
article. COMPLTcomputerizes their suggestions.
Clusters are extracted fromthe data in a two-step
procedure [Alba & Gutmann, 1974]. All the maximally connected subgroups are extracted,and are
then merged ifthey differby no morethanone point
from each other. The resultinggroupingsare then
aggregated on the basis of an overlap parameter
specified by the user.
Both types of methods can be used simultaneously, and the next section discusses a case
example that uses both SOCKand COMPLTin the
analysis.

more than 40 people were accurate.

There have been mathematicalapproaches to
sociometric data analysis [Harary& Cartwright,
1965]. Startingwith a matrixof nominations,these
approaches arrange individualson the basis of
similaritywith respect to the criterion.Techniques
have ranged the gamut from matrixpermutations
[Forsyth&Katz, 1946; Hubbel,1965] to graphtheoretical models [Luce & Perry, 1949; Alba, 1972].
Despite their sophistication, however, these techniques have until recently remained for the most
part extremely cumbersome to apply to large data
sets.
The breakComputers and sociometry
throughfor networkmethodologyhas been the use
of computers [Roistacher,1974]. There are a number of computer algorithmsavailablefor analyzing
sociometric data. Some of the better-knownones
are DIP [Gleason], SocPac [Leinhart,1977], SOCK
and COMPLT,BLOCKERand CONCOR[Breiger,
Boorman, & Arabie, 1975; Arabie & Boorman
1973]. According to Roistacher [1974], the most
complete sociometric programavailable for distribution,and the only one approximatinga sociometric utilitysystem, is Alba's[1972]SOCK.
In general, two sets of methods are used for
analyzing networkdata. The firstis groundedin the
manipulationof proximitymeasures, where proximity is an index that reflects the social distance
between individuals[McFarland& Brown,1973]. A
variety of measures have been suggested. For instance, Breiger et al. [1975] use the productmoment correlations between the column vectors
of nominations received by two individualsas an
index of social proximity;Albaand Kadushin[1976]
suggest that two individualsare proximateif they
are linkedto the same individuals.Closely relatedis
Lorrainand White's [1971] concept of structural
equivalence, used by Breigeret al. [1975]to define
block-modeling, a technique that essentially clusters structurallyequivalent individuals.SOCK is a
system that reads in sociometric data and allows
the user to call various routinesthat generate pairwise measures of proximity.The proximitymeasures are then used eitherto cluster individualsinto
highly interrelatedgroups using Johnson's [1967]
hierarchical clustering algorithm, or as input to
Kruskal's[1964] multidimensionalscaling algorithm
to providea plotof the proximitymatrixinu-space (u

AnalyzingOrganizationsUsing
A NetworkFramework:
A Case Example
In this section, the networkapproach is used to
complement more traditionalapproaches to organizationdesign and structure.Data are drawnfrom
Payne and Pheysey's [1973] study of three organizations, itselfa resultof a largerAston study [Pugh,
Hickson, Hinnings, & Turner, 1969]. A complete
secondary analysis of their data can be found in
Tichy and Fombrun[1979].
Theoretical Focus
The assessment is based on a contingency
theory of organizations. The argument- derived
from Burns and Stalker [1961], Lawrence and
Lorsch [1967], Pugh et al. [1969],Tushman[1979],
Hage, Aiken, and Marrett[1971],.and Galbraith
[1973] - is that mechanistic structuresare most
appropriate under conditions of high task uncertainty. A mechanistic organization uses bureaucratic principles to design, plan, and prescribe
roles. Thus, the influenceand informationchannels
in mechanistic organizationsshould be highlypre513

scribed. Given high task certainty, individuals will

have little discretion in their choice of work-related
contacts. This implies that the emergent network of
interaction will closely follow the prescribed network
in a mechanistic setting. Organic organizations are
most effective when the unit's task is uncertain.
Because complex or highly variable tasks cannot
be preprogrammed, it may be that informalrelations
arise to accomplish them. If so, then in organic
organizations, emergent networks may differ considerably from prescribed networks.
In sum, given one mechanistic and one organic
organization, we would expect to find different
patterns of relationships to prevail in each. Network
data should clearly point up the difference.

yoursubordinates,and people at the same level as

yourself. Please write down the names of those
with whom you have spent the most time on work
matters. Listthe names, in order, so that the first
person is the one withwhom you have spent the
most time.
Results
From a network perspective, the first desirable
outcome is to get a sense of the total configuration.
This "gestalt sociology" approach should intuitively
suggest areas worthy of investigation.
Figure 1 gives us the output from the multidimensional scaling segment of SOCK, plotted in two
dimensions. The closer two points are on the diagrams, the more similar these individuals are in
terms of their interactional environments [Alba &
Kadushin, 1976]. Note that, although these distances are only ordinal in nature, Figure 1 gives us a
view of the total network configurations based on
interaction linkages. It therefore presents a social
map of the organization.
Superimposed on the SOCK plots are the clusters derived from the COMLTprocedure. Incombining both SOCK and COMPLT, the diagrams of
Figure 1 show two-dimensional interactional maps
of the organizations that provide three basic types
of information:

Setting and Procedure

The two organizations, code-named Aston and
Brum, were drawn from the Aston sample [Pugh et
al., 1969; Payne & Pheysey, 1973]. Table 3 presents the organization scores on the neo-Weberian
dimensions of organization structure. On the basis
of structuring and centralization, Brum is clearly
more organic than Aston, despite Brum's larger
size.
Sociometric data were collected by interactional
analysis. The top management groups (20 managers at Aston, 13 at Brum) were asked:
Thinkback over the past month.Consider all the
people in your department;i.e., your superiors,

1. relative social distance between individuals,

representingthe similarityof theirnetworkties;

Table 3
Characteristics of Two Organizations
Aston

Brum

Numberof Employees

350

412

WoodwardTechnology

small
batch

small
batch

StructuringActivities

57a

35a

Concentrationof Authority
(Centralizationat higherlevels)

47a

27a

Numberof Levels of Hierarchy

aScores on these variables are standard scores, having a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 15, based on the original sample of 52
midland organizations.

514

#4

Figure 1
InteractionNetworks
------

Prescribed clusters

Emergentclusters

Jote: 1. Lines representdirectnominationsbetweenend points.

2. Clusters were determinedfromCOMPLTand superimposed
on SOCKscaling output.
3. Numbersrepresentformalstatus of individualsin
organization. 1 = top, 2 = middle, 3 = supervisory.

2. the formal status of individuals (1 = top management, 2 = middle management, and 3 =

supervisory);

cluster of lower-level people is reminiscent of the

familiar pyramidal structure of bureaucratic organizations. Given Aston's status as a very mechanistic
organization, this is not surprising. Individuals interact more closely with people on their prescribed
levels. Bridge roles #6, #9, and #10 are the farthest members from the middle group and the
closest to the supervisory group, as would be expected. Sociometric stars are individuals #6 and
#9, the two principal "linking pin" roles. Finally,
individual #4 is an isolate. He is also a member of
Aston's top management.
Brum, the more organic organization, is layered
from top to bottom as well. Figure 1(B) indicates,
however, that the top group of Brum is not quite as
cohesive as that at Aston. The middle managers
seem more central in terms of interaction with both
top and bottom levels. The stars of the network, #2
and #4, are centrally placed on the organization
chart and provide liaison with the top.

3. clusters indicating densely connected groups.

The interaction network in Aston can be separated

into three overlapping clusters. Cluster 1, the largest, comprises all top and middle managers.
Cluster 2 consists of the manager of one division
and his two subordinates, and the third cluster includes the middle manager of the other division
(individual #9) and a subset of his staff.
The SOCK plots arrange individuals in Aston into
three layers corresponding to the prescribed statuses. From Figure 1(A), all of the top managers (1s)
are in the first layer, at the bottom; all of the middle
managers (2s) are in the second layer; and the
supervisory staff (3s) are in the third layer, at the
top. The narrow cluster of top people with a slightly
wider cluster of middle people and the broader
S1'

On the basis of the organization chart, it is possible to define the kind of interactional clusters we
would expect to observe in each organization. In
Figure 1, these expected clusters are plotted in
dotted lines. The clusters derived from COMPLT,
based on observed interaction patterns, are plotted
in dark lines.
Comparing the expected and actual clusters,
Figure 1 suggests that, at Aston, high overlap
exists. There is a relatively close fit between the
prescribed and emergent clusters of interaction. At
Brum, the emergent cluster comprises all the members sampled. As predicted, actual interaction patterns went above and beyond the prescribed interaction patterns. It seems, then, that the emergent
interaction networks in the two organizations are of
the form predicted from a contingency point of view.
Because these data have been presented to illustrate network analysis, we do not carry the
analysis to the next step, which involves deriving
indices corresponding to the characteristics listed in
part C of Table 1. Most of these indices are included
as part of the SOCK and COMPLT computer
output.
With this example we have tried to show the utility
of a network approach to organizational research.
The method is especially useful in that it facilitates
the comparative analysis of organizations as well
as the comparison of subunits within an organization.

understood. Why do they change, and by how much

and how frequently do they change under different
sets of conditions? Can we rely on a particulardata
set collected at a point in time, or is this problematic,
owing to the instability of networks over time?
In sum, while there are real costs involved with
further developing the social network approach, the
benefits are substantial and appear to far outweigh
the costs. Network analysis represents an underutilized framework for analyzing and conceptualizing organizations. Our research agenda for studies
based on network analysis includes:
1. Interorganizational

2.

3.

4.

Conclusion

5.

The social network framework, methods, and a

case example were presented to support our claim
that significant advances can be made in organization theory and research using this approach. Such
optimism for the future of social network analysis is
not meant to hide the considerable hurdles ahead.
Many significant problems need to be overcome
before we can speak of a network paradigm. For
example, the stability of networks needs to be

6.

relationships.

Evan's

[1966] notion of the organizationset can be

greatly expanded to look at wide-reachingexternal networks linking organizations. Also,
studies of interlockingdirectoratescan be more
systematic [Pennings, 1978].
Organizationsand theirboundaries.The study
of boundarypermeabilityand boundary-spanning networks is a promising area for both
conceptualand empiricaldevelopment.
Careerpatternsand succession. Studiesof the
role and functioningof networksin career mobilityare needed [Granovetter,1974].
Organizationchange. Networkanalysis provides (a) diagnostic tools for the planningof
change, (b) tools for measuringthe impactof
change efforts, and (c) a set of explanatory
variables for how change agents affectorganizations.
Design configuration.Contingencytheories of
organization design [Galbraith, 1973; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967] have overlooked the
emergent networks associated with different
design configurations.Such an assessment is
called for.
Power and political processes. The study of
organizations and leadership behaviorfrom a
politicalperspective is more amenable to systematic analysis based on a networkperspective [Thompson,1967; Tushman,1977a; Wolfinger, 1960].

REFERENCES
Alba, R., & Gutmann, M. P. COMPLT. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University Bureau of Applied Social Research,
1974.

Alba, R. A graph-theoretic definition of a sociometric clique.

Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1972, 3, 113-126.
Alba, R., & Gutmann, M. P. SOCK: A sociometric analysis
system. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University Bureau
of Applied Social Research, 1974.

Alba, R., & Kadushin, C. The intersection of social circles.

Sociological Methods & Research, 1976, 5, 77-102.

516

Aldrich, H. Organization sets, action sets, and networks:

Making the most of simplicity.In Paul G. Nystrom& William
Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizationdesign (Vol. 1).
London:OxfordUniversityPress, in press.
Aldrich,H., &Herker,D. Boundaryspanningroles and organization structure.Academy of Management Review, 1977, 2,
217-230.

Coleman, J., Katz,E., &Merzel,H. The diffusionof an innovation among physicians.Sociometry,1957,20,253-270.

Cooley, C. H. Humannatureand the social order.Glencoe,III.:
Free Press, 1956.
Crozier,M. Relationshipsbetween microandmacrosociology.
HumanRelations, 1972,25,239-251.
Dahl, R. A critiqueof the ruling-elitemodel.AmericanPolitical
Science Review, 1958,52,463-469.
Dahl, R. Modern political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall,1963.

Allen, T. J. Roles in technical communicationnetworks. In

Carlos A. Cadura(Ed.),Annualreviewof informationsciences.
New York:Basic Books, 1969.
Allen, T. J. Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge,
Mass.: MITPress, 1977.
Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. Informationflow in R and D labs.
AdministrativeScience Quarterly,1969,14, 12-19.
Anton, T. Power, pluralism,and local politics.Administrative
Science Quarterly,1963, 7,425-457.
Arabie, P., & Boorman, S. A. Multidimensionalscaling of
measures of distance between partitions.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1973, 10, 148-203.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. Two faces of power. American
PoliticalScience Review, 1962, 56, 947-952.
Baldridge,J. Power and conflictin the university.New York:
Wiley, 1971.

Edstrom,A., &Galbraith,J. Transferof managersas a coordinating and controlstrategy in multi-national

organizations.AdministrativeScience Quarterly,1977,22,248-263.
Ekeh, P. P. Social exchange theory:Thetwo traditions.Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress, 1974.
Evan, W. M. The organizationalset: Towarda theoryof interorganizationalrelations. In J. Thompson (Ed.), Organization
design. Pittsburgh:Universityof PittsburghPress, 1966.
Forsythe, E., & Katz, L. A matrixapproachto the analysis of
sociometricdata. Sociometry,1946, 9, 340-347.
Frazer,James G. Folklorein the Old Testament(Vol.2). London: Macmillan,1919.
Freeman, L., Fararo,T. J., Bloomberg,W., Jr., & Sunshine,M.
H. Locating leaders in local communities:A comparisonof
some alternativeapproaches. AmericanSociological Review,
1963,28,791-798.
Frey, F. The determination and location of elites. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanPoliticalScience Association, 1976.

Banfield,E. Politicalinfluence.New York:Free Press, 1961.

Barnes, J. Networksand politicalprocesses. InJames Clyde
Mitchell(Ed.), Social networksin urbansituations.Manchester,
Engl.:Universityof ManchesterPress, 1969.
Bavelas, A. An experimentalapproachto organizationalcommunication.Personnel, 1951,27,366-371.
Blau, P. M. Exchange and power in social life. New York:
Wiley, 1964.

Galbraith,Jay R. Designing complex organizations.Reading,

Mass.: Addison-Wesley,1973.
Gamson, W. Reputationand resources in communitypolitics.
AmericanJournalof Sociology, 1966, 72, 121-131.
Gleason, T. DIP: A directed graph processor. Unpublished
manuscript,Universityof MichiganInstituteforSocial Research,
1976.

Boissevain, J. Friendsoffriends.New York:St. Martin'sPress,

1974.
Bougon, M., Weick, K., &Binkhardt,D. Cognitionin organizations: An analysis of the UtrechtJazz Orchestra.Administrative
Science Quarterly,1977, 22, 606-639.

Granovetter,M. Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress, 1974.

Brams, S. Measuringthe concentrationof power in political

systems. American PoliticalScience Review, 1968, 62, 461475.
Breiger, R. L., Boorman,S. A., & Arabie,P. An algorithmfor
clustering relationaldata with applicationsto social network
analysis. Journalof MathematicalPsychology, 1975, 12, 328383.

Gross, N., Mason,W., &McEachen,A.W. Explorations

in role
analysis: Studies of the school superintendencyrole. NewYork:
Wiley, 1958.
Hage, J., Aiken,M., & Marrett,C. Organizationstructureand
communication.AmericanSociological Review, 1971, 36, 860871.

Burns, T., & Stalker,G. Themanagementof innovation.London: Tavistock, 1961.

Chapple, E. D., &Sayles, L. R. Themeasure of management.
New York:Macmillan,1961.
Child, J. Organization structure, environment, and performance: The roleof strategicchoice. Sociology, 1972, 6, 1-22.
Clark, T. Communitystructure and decision making. San
Francisco:Chandler,1968.

Harary, N., & Cartwright,D. Structuralmodels. New York:

Wiley, 1965.
Herson, L. In the footsteps of communitypower. American
PoliticalScience Review, 1961,60, 817-830.
Homans, G. C. Social behavior: Its elementaryforms. New
York:Harcourt,Brace, &World,1961.
517

Hubble, C. H. An input-output approach to clique identification.

Sociometry, 1965,28, 377-399.

McFarland, D., & Brown, D. Social distance as a metric: A

systematic introduction to smallest-space analysis. In E. O.
Laumann (Ed.), Bonds of pluralism. New York: Wiley, 1973,
213-253.

Hunter, F. Community powerstructure. Chapel Hill:University

of North Carolina Press, 1953.
Jacobson, E., & Seashore, S. Communication patterns in
complex organizations. Journal of Social Issues, 1951,7, 28-40.

Merton, R. K. Social theory and social structure. New York:

Free Press, 1968.

Johnson, S. Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika,

1967,32, 241-254.

Mitchell, J. C. The concept and use of social networks. In J. C.

Mitchell (Ed.), Social networks in urban situations. Manchester,
Engl.: University of Manchester Press, 1969.

Kadushin, C. Power, influence, and social circles: A new

methodology for studying opinion makers. American Sociological Review, 1968, 33,685-699.

O'Reilly, C. A., III,& Pondy, L. R. Organizational communication. In Steve Kerr (Ed.), Organizational behavior. Columbia,
Ohio: Grid, 1979.

Kadushin, C. Introduction to macro-network analysis. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University Teachers College, 1978.

Park, R. E. The concept of social distance. Journal of Applied

Sociology, 1.924, 8, 339-344.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. Organizational stress. New York:Wiley, 1964.

Parsons, T. Structure and process in modern society. New

York: Free Press, 1960.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. The social psychology of organizations.

New York: Wiley, 1966.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P.
Press, 1955.

Payne, R., & Pheysey, D. Organization structure and sociometric nominations amongst line managers in three contrasted
organizations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 1,
261-284.

Personal influence. New York: Free

Katz, R., & Tushman, M. Communication patterns, project

performance, and task characteristics: An empirical evaluation
and integration in an R&D setting. Organizational Behavior &
Human Performance, 1979,23.

Pennings, J. Interlocking directorates. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie-Mellon Institute, 1978.

Perrow, C. Organizational analysis. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1970.

Kruskal, J. B. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical

method. Psychometrika, 1964,29, 115-129.

Pettigrew, A. Information control as a power source. Sociology, 1972, 6, 187-204.

Laumann, E. O., & Pappi, F. U. Networks of collective action.

New York: Academic Press, 1976.

Pettigrew, A. The politics of organizational decision making.

London: Tavistock, 1973.
Polsby, N. Community power and political theory. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1963.

Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. Organizations and environment.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967.
Leavitt, H. J. Some effects of certain communication patterns
on group performance. Joural of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 1951,46, 38-50.

Porter, L., & Roberts, K. Communication in organizations. InM.

Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976.

Leinhart, S. SOSCPAC: A FORTRAN IVprogram for structural

analysis of sociometric data. Journal of Behavioral Sciences,
1971, 16, 515.

Presthus, R. The organizational society. New York: Random

House, 1965.

Leinhart, S. (Ed.). Social networks: A developing paradigm.

New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinnings, C. R., & Turner,

C. The context of organizational structures. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 1969, 14, 115-127.

Levi-Strauss, C. The elementary structures of kinship. Boston:

Beacon Press, 1969.

Roberts, K., & O'Reilly, C., III. Measuring organizational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 14, 98-104.
Rogers, E., & Rogers, A. Communication of organizations.
New York: Free Press, 1976.

Levine, J. The sphere of influence. American Sociological

Review, 1972,37, 14-27.
Lorrain, F., & White, H. C. Structural equivalence of individuals
in social networks. Joural of Mathematical Sociology, 1971, 1,
49-80.

Rogers, E., & Shoemaker, F. F. Communication of innovations. New York: Free Press, 1971.
Roistacher, R. A review of mathematical methods in sociometry. Sociological Methods & Research, 1974, 3, 124-170.

Luce, R., & Perry, A. A method of matrix analysis of group

structure. Psychometrika, 1949,14,95-116.
Malinowski, B.
Dutton, 1922.

Rose, A. The power structure. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1968.

Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York:

518

Tushman, M. L. Technicalcommunicationin researchand development laborabories:Impactof projectworkcharacteristics.

Academy of ManagementJournal,1978, 21, 624-645.
Tushman,M.L. Determinantsof subunitcommunicationstructure:A contingencyanalysis.Administrative
Science Quarterly,
1979,24, 82-98.
Weick, K. The social psychology of organizing. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley,1969.
Weiss, R. S., &Jacobson, E. A methodforthe analysis of the
structureof complex organizations.AmericanSociological Review, 1955,20,668-670.
Whyte, W. F. Street corer society. Chicago: Universityof
Chicago Press, 1955.

Schwartz, D., & Jacobson, E. Organizationalcommunication

network analysis: The liaison role. OrganizationalBehavior&
HumanPerformance,1977,18,158-174.
Simmel, G. Thesociology of Georg Simmel(K.Wolff,trans.).
Glencoe, III.:Free Press, 1950.
Thibaut,J., &Kelley,H. Thesocial psychology of groups. New
York:Wiley, 1959.
Thompson, J. D. Organizationsin action. New York:McGrawHill,1967.
Tichy, N. M. An analysis of clique formationand structurein
organizations.AdministrativeScience Quarterly,1973,18,194208.
Tichy, N. M. Networksin organizations.In Paul G. Nystrom&
WilliamStarbuck(Eds.),Handbookof organizationdesign. London: OxfordUniversityPress, in press.
Tichy, N. M.&Fombrun,C. Networkanalysis inorganizational
settings. HumanRelations,1979 (inpress).
Tushman, M. L. Communicationacross organizationalboundaries: Special boundaryroles in the innovationprocess. AdministrativeScience Quarterly,1977,22, 587-605.

Wildavsky, A. The politics of the budgetary process. New

York:Little,Brown,1964.
Wolfinger,R. Reputationand realityinthe studyof community
power.AmericanSociological Review, 1960, 25, 636-644.
Wolfinger,R. A plea fora decent burial.AmericanSociological
Review, 1962, 27, 841-847.
Zald, Mayer (Ed.). Power in organizations.Nashville,Tenn.:
VanderbiltUniversityPress, 1970.

Noel Tichy is Associate Professor of Organization

Behaviorat the GraduateSchool of Business, Columbia University,and Senior Research Associate, Center forPolicyResearch, Inc.
MichaelTushmanis AssistantProfessorof Organization Behavior at the GraduateSchool of Business,
ColumbiaUniversity.
Charles Fombrun is a Lecturer at The Wharton
School, Universityof Pennsylvania.
Received 7/20/78

519