Benefits of Organized Networks

Häntzschel, Alexander

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17858-5_2

Alexander Häntzschel²

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Business ((BRIEFSBUSINESS))

465 Accesses

Abstract

What are organized networks, how do they function and to what extent can they be useful? In order to understand the main benefits of organized networks, it is helpful to become familiar with the underlying theory and how it was developed. In total, eight different theories and concepts are considered. It is argued that organized networks enable professionals to get new ideas, make the world smaller, help to better understand different cultures, and provide access to Buying Centers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 39.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 54.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Leonhard Euler (1707–1783) was a pioneering Swiss mathematician.
2.
Emile Durkheim, Ferdinand Toennies, Georg Simmel and others also contributed to the development.
3.
Jacob Moreno (1889–1974) was an Austrian-American psychologist. Alfred Radcliffe-Brown (1881–1955) was a British social anthropologist.
4.
Harrison White (1930–) is an American economist and sociologist, now at Columbia University.
5.
Some noteworthy authors include Ronald Burt (1949–), Stephen Borgatti (1956–) and Albert-Laszlo Barabasi (1967–).
6.
The example and figures are largely based on the book by Barabasi (2002, 15).
7.
Adam Smith (1723–1790) was a Scottish philosopher and a pioneer of political economy. Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859) was a French historian and political thinker.
8.
Quoted from Halbern (2005, 6).
9.
This chapter is mainly based on the findings and assumptions of Bourdieu and not Coleman. James Coleman (1926–1995) was an American sociologist. Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002) was a French philosopher.
10.
Quoted from Halbern (2005, 7).
11.
Robert Putnam (1941–) is an American political scientist at Harvard University.
12.
In total, BASF has six “Verbundsysteme” with about 380 production sites.
13.
Google Scholars lists more than 24,900 citations (July 2013).
14.
Mark Granovetter (1943–) is an American sociologist at Stanford University. Ronald Burt (1949–) is an American sociologist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
15.
According to Granovetter’s first premise, A’s tie to someone outside his group can hardly be strong, but must be weak. Otherwise, it would be unlikely that A is the only one in his social group with this specific tie (Granovetter 1973, 1364). Figures 2.4 and 2.5 are based on a model by Borgatti and Halgin (2011, 4).
16.
Stanley Milgram (1933–1984) was an American psychologist. Eric Horvitz (1965–) is an American computer scientist at Microsoft. Jure Leskovec is a data mining specialist at Stanford University.
17.
The concept and term of “Six Degrees of Separation” was actually set out by the Hungarian author Frigyes Karinthy. In his short story “Everything is different—Chain-Links”, he bet that it requires no more than five individuals to contact a selected individual using nothing except the network of personal acquaintances (Karinthy 1929, 2; Barabasi 2002, 25ff.).
18.
In his first article on the topic, Milgram spoke of five intermediaries. Later, he adjusted the number to 5.5 and rounded it up to six (Milgram 1967, 64ff.; Kleinfeld 2001).
19.
Figure 2.6 is based on an illustration by Walter (2010).
20.
The term is also often used by medical scientists when describing the spread of diseases.
21.
Geert Hofstede (1928–) is a Dutch culture scientist.
22.
Quoted from Gould and Fernandez (1998, 91).
23.
Peter Marsden is Professor of Sociology at Harvard University. Roger Gould (1962–2002) was a researcher at Yale University. Roberto Fernandez is Management Professor of Organization Studies at the MIT Sloan School of Management. Figure 2.7 is based on a model by Nooy (2005, 136).
24.
Hofstede’s “Cultural Dimensions Theory” is criticized by many scholars for simplifying cultures and their characteristics. In particular, the author of this text opposes Hofstede's approach and method, because it neglects any cultural contacts and all transcultural exchange processes. There is no doubt, however, that the “Cultural Dimensions Theory” is helpful for illustrating differences between cultures, when there is not much space for discussing topics such as cultural identity and affiliation. For this reason alone, Hofstede’s method has been applied here.
25.
Indulgence versus Restraint is not yet considered by The Hofstede Center in the comparison of the countries, thus, this book does not deal with it either.
26.
Figure 2.8 is based on a chart from The Hofstede Center (2012, Germany, China).
27.
Power Distance is defined by Hofstede as the extent to which less powerful member of organizations or institutions within a country accept that power is distributed unequally.
28.
Individualism addresses the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members.
29.
Long-term Orientation measures the extent to which a society shows a pragmatic future-oriented perspective rather than a conventional historical short-term point of view.
30.
For example, Webster did not consider the role of the initiator, although he explains how buying process are started (Webster and Wind 1972, 14, 17).
31.
Alexander Graham Bell (1847–1922) was an American engineer who is credited with inventing the telephone.
32.
Figure 2.10 is based on an illustration by Fernando (2006).
33.
Quoted from Choi (1994, 19).
34.
The maximum member capacity of online networks is mainly a matter of the expectations of the network.

References

Alexanderson G (2006) Euler and Koenigsberg’s bridges: a historical view. Bull Am Math Soc 43(4):567–573
Google Scholar
Barabasi A-L (2002) Linked—the new science of networks. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge
Google Scholar
BASF (2014) Verbund. https://www.basf.com/en/company/about-us/strategy-and-organization/verbund.html. Accessed 7 Jan 2015
Borgatti S, Halgin D (2011) On network theory. Organ Sci 1168–1181
Google Scholar
Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson J (ed) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Greenwood Press, New York, pp 241–258
Google Scholar
Bourdieu P, Wacquant L (1992) An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Google Scholar
Burt R (1992) Structural holes, the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Burt R (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. Am J Sociol 110(2):349–399
Google Scholar
Choi JP (1994) Herd behavior, the “Penguin Effect”, and the suppression of informational diffusion: An analysis of informational externalities and Payoff interdependency. Columbia University, New York
Google Scholar
Dambeck H (2008) Das Jeder-kennt-jeden-Gesetz. Spiegel online (2 Aug 2008). http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/ueber-6-6-ecken-das-jeder-kennt-jeden-gesetz-a-569705.html. Accessed 6 Jan 2015
de Nooy W (2005) Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
de Tocqueville A (1835, 2012) Democracy in America (trans: Reeve H). University of Adelaide, Paris
Google Scholar
Farrell J, Saloner G (1987) Competition, compatibility and standards: the economics of horses, penguins and lemmings. In: Gabel L (ed) Competitive strategies for product standards. McGraw Hill, London
Google Scholar
Fernando A (2006) Network effect. Wikimedia commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Network_effect.png. Accessed 7 Feb 2016
Fuhse J (2008) Menschen in Netzwerken. In: Rehberg K-S (ed) Die Natur der Gesellschaft. Campus, Frankfurt, pp 2933–2943
Google Scholar
Galambos L (1992) Theodore N. Vail and the role of innovation in the modern bell system. The business history review (Spring 1992). Springer, Berlin, pp 95–126
Google Scholar
Gallaugher J (1997–2008) Understanding network effects. John Gallaugher. http://www.gallaugher.com/Network%20Effects%20Chapter.pdf. Accessed 6 Jan 2015
Giddens A (2009) Sociology. Polity Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Gould R, Fernandez R (1998) Structure of mediation: a formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociol Methodol 19:89–126
Article Google Scholar
Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78(6):1360–1380
Google Scholar
Granovetter M (2011) The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. In: Granovetter M, Swederg R (eds) The sociology of economic life. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 46–61
Google Scholar
Halbern D (2005) Social capital. Polity Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Hanifan LJ (1920) The community center. Silver, Burdett and Company, Boston
Google Scholar
Harvard University (2013) Bowling alone. http://bowlingalone.com/?page_id=13. Accessed 26 July 2013
Homburg C, Kuester S, Krohmer H (2013) Marketing management, a contemporary perspective, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire
Google Scholar
Karinthy F (1929) Everything is different—chain-links. Google docs. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdjjr-courses.wdfiles.com%2Flocal–files%2Fsoc180%3Akarinthy-chain-links%2FKarinthy-Chain-Links_1929.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2015
Kleinfeld J (2001) Could it be a big world after all? The six degrees of separation myth. Psychology today (April 12, 2001)
Google Scholar
Kotler P, Bliemel F (2006) Marketing-management, analyse, Planung und Verwirklichung, 10th edn. Pearson Education Deutschland, Munich
Google Scholar
Kotler P, Pfoertsch W (2006) B2B brand management. Springer, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Marsden P (1982) Brokerage behavior in restricted exchange networks. In: Marsden P, Lin N (eds) Social structure and network analysis. Sage Publications, London, pp 201–218
Google Scholar
Microsoft Research (2006) Six degrees of separation. Microsoft research (July 2006). http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/horvitz/degrees_of_separation.htm. Accessed 6 Jan 2015
Milgram S (1967) The small world problem. Psychol Today 2(1):60–67
Google Scholar
Parjanen S, Hyypiae M, Oikarinen T (2011) Brokerage function in network level innovation processes. In: Organization learning, knowledge and capabilities conference. University of Warwick, Hull, pp 1–17
Google Scholar
Parker G, Van Alstyne M (2005) Two-sided network effects: a theory of information product design. Manage Sci 51:1494–1504
Google Scholar
Rohlfs J (1974) A theory of interdependent demand for a communications service. Bell J Econ Manage Sci 5:16–37
Google Scholar
Scott J (2004) Social network analysis. Sage Publications, London
Google Scholar
Shapiro C, Varian H (1999) Information rules—a strategic guide to the network economy. Harvard Business School, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Sheridan P, Muhamad R, Watts D (2003) An experimental study of search in global social networks. Science (301):827–829
Google Scholar
Sundararajan A (2003–2006) Network effects. http://oz.stern.nyu.edu/io/network.html. Accessed 6 Jan 2015
The Hofstede Center (2012) The Hofstede center. http://www.geert-hofstede.com/. Accessed 6 Jan 2015
Travers J, Milgram S (1969) An experimental study of the small world problem. Sociometry 32(4):425–443
Google Scholar
Walter D (2010) Six degrees of separation. Wikimedia commons. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Six_degrees_of_separation.svg. Accessed 7 Feb 2015
Wassermann S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Webster F, Wind Y (1972) A general model for understanding organizational buying behavior. J Market 12–19
Google Scholar
White H (1992) Identity and control. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Google Scholar
White H (2001) Markets from networks, socioeconomic models of production. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
Alexander Häntzschel

Authors

Alexander Häntzschel
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Häntzschel, A. (2015). Benefits of Organized Networks. In: German-Sino Business Networks. SpringerBriefs in Business. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17858-5_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17858-5_2
Published: 14 June 2015
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17857-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17858-5
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics