In this article, we examine the social structure of workplace relationships (both actual and desired ties) in networked distributed work. We focus on the role of human agency in forming networks needed to succeed in this environment. In particular, we address how employee work engagement enables individuals to occupy the network positions that they need in order to succeed in networked and virtual settings. We analyze a distributed team within a large multinational firm involved in software development and delivery activities and find that highly engaged employees have personal networks that are anchored locally (i.e., strong ties with colleagues who are collocated and more transitive triples) and connect globally (i.e., strong ties with distant colleagues and more liaison brokerage ties across geographic locations). We also find a general tendency for all respondents to desire new ties that reach across global locations to improve performance at work. However, only the highly engaged employees achieve these ties highlighting the role of motivation and agency associated with engagement.
AnklamP. A. (2011). Net work. New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
BalducciC.FraccaroliF.SchaufeliW. B. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 143-149.
3.
BlackburnR.FurstS.RosenB. (2003). Building a winning virtual team: KSAs, selection, training, and evaluation. In GibsonC. B.CohenS. G. (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 95-120). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
BorgattiS. P.BrassD. J.HalginD. S. (2014). Social network research: Confusions, criticisms, and controversies. In BorgattiS. P.BrassD. J.HalginD. S.LabiancaG.MehraA. (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 40, pp. 1-29). Bingley, England: Emerald.
5.
BorgattiS. P.CrossR. (2003) A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49, 432-445.
6.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
7.
BorgattiS. P.HalginD. S. (2011). On network theory. Organization Science, 22, 1168-1181.
8.
BorgattiS. P.MehraA.BrassD. J.LabiancaG. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323, 892-895.
9.
ChristianM. S.GarzaA. S.SlaughterJ. E. (2011). Work engagement: A qualitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89-136.
10.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
11.
CrossR.BorgattiS. P. (2004). The ties that share: relational characteristics that facilitate information seeking. In HuysmanM. H.WulfV. (Eds.), Social capital and IT (pp. 137-162). Cambridge: MIT Press.
12.
CummingsJ. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50, 352-364.
13.
CummingsJ. N.HassM. R. (2012). So many teams, so little time: Time allocation matters in geographically dispersed teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 316-341.
14.
DimitrovaD.WellmanB. (2015). Networked work and network research: New forms of teamwork in the triple revolution. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(4), 443-456. doi:10.1177/0002764214556811
15.
GouldR. V.FernandezR. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89-126.
16.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 1, 1360-1380.
17.
HansenM. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82-111.
18.
HindsP. J.KieslerS. (2002). Distributed work. Cambridge: MIT Press.
19.
HindsP. J.MortensenM. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16, 290-307.
20.
JarvenpaaS. L.LeidnerD. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791-815.
21.
KrackhardtD. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organization. In NohriaN.EcclesR. G. (Eds.), Networks and organizations (pp. 216-239). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
22.
MaznevskiM. L.ChudobaK. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11, 473-492.
23.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
24.
MehraA.BorgattiS. P.SoltisS.FloydT.OfemB.HalginD. S.KidwellV. (2014). Imaginary worlds: Using visual network scales to capture perceptions of social networks. In BorgattiS. P.BrassD. J.HalginD. S.LabiancaG.MehraA. (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 315-336). Bingley, England: Emerald.
25.
O’LearyM. B.CummingsJ. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31, 433-452.
26.
ParkerA.HalginD. S.BorgattiS. P. (2014). Dynamics of social capital: Effects of performance feedback on network change. Manuscript submitted for publication.
27.
Perry-SmithJ. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 85-101.
28.
PodsakoffN. P.WhitingS. W.PodsakoffP. M.BlumeB. D. (2009). Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122-141.
29.
Quan-HaaseA.WellmanB. (2004). Local virtuality in a high-tech networked organization. Analyse & Kritik, 28, 241-257.
30.
RainieL.WellmanB. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge: MIT Press.
31.
ReagansR.McEvilyB. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240-267.
32.
RichB. L.LepineJ. A.CrawfordE. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617-635.
33.
SasovovaZ.MehraA.BorgattiS. P.SchippersM. C. (2010). Network churn: The effects of self-monitoring personality on brokerage dynamics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 639-670.
34.
SchaufeliW. B.BakkerA. B.SalanovaM. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701-716.
35.
SchaufeliW. B.SalanovaM.Gonzalez-RomáV.BakkerA. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
36.
ThompsonJ. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
37.
UzziB. (1997). Social structure and competition in inter-firm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35-67.
38.
WagemanR.GardnerH.MortensenM. (2012). The changing ecology of teams: New directions for teams research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 301-315.
39.
WagemanR.GordonF. M. (2005). As the twig is bent: How group values shape emergent task interdependence in groups. Organization Science, 16, 687-700.
40.
WellmanB. (2002). Little boxes, glocalization, and networked individualism. In TanabeM.van den BesselaarP.IshidaT. (Eds.), Digital cities II: Computational and sociological approaches (pp. 10-25). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
41.
WellmanB.DimitrovaD.HayatZ.GuangY. M.SmaleL. (2014). Networking scholars in a networked organization. In BorgattiS. P.BrassD. J.HalginD. S.LabiancaG.MeshraA. (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 479-497). Bingley, England: Emerald.
