Change processes in organizations involve the formal expectations of change agents and administrators, but social processes taking place in the organization also may generate different, sometimes conflicting, outcomes. This study examines a planned restructuring effort that attempted to get people in an organization to work more closely together. The authors hypothesize that individuals seek influence in the organization by acting as brokers between others who are not connected to each other. These brokers gain influence by connecting the otherwise disconnected and have no incentive to connect others to each other. The contradictory forces pushing for connection and the exploiting of disconnections between actors are examined in a school undergoing a change effort during the course of a year.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bartunek, J. (1991). McLaughlin school. In A. M. Glassman & T. G. Cummings (Eds.), Cases in organization development (pp. 396-414). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
2.
Bartunek, J. M. (1993). Rummaging behind the scenes of organizational change—And finding role transitions, illness, and physical space. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 7, pp. 41-76). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
3.
Bartunek, J., & Reid, R. (1992). The role of conflict in a second order change attempt. In D. Kolb & J. Bartunek (Eds.), Hidden conflict in organizations: Uncovering behind the scenes disputes (pp. 116-142). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Bohrnstedt, G. W. (1969). Observations on the measurement of change. In E. F. Borgatta (Ed.), Sociological methodology, 1969 (pp. 113-133). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518-539.
6.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 345-423). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
8.
Connolly, P. I. (2000). Leadership on race in a changing suburban high school. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 407-424.
9.
Cooper, R., & Markus, L. M. (1995). Human reengineering. Sloan Management Review, Summer 36, 39-50.
10.
Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44, 25-46.
11.
Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (1980). Actors and systems: The politics of collective action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
13.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
14.
Granovetter, M. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations (pp. 25-26). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
15.
Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 72-92.
16.
Heise, D. R. (1970). Causal inference from panel data. In E. F. Borgatta & G. W. Bohrnstedt (Eds.), Sociological methodology, 1970 (pp. 3-27). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
17.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1979). Statistical models and methods for analysis of longitudinal data. In K. G. Jöreskog & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models (pp. 129-170). Cambridge, MA: Abt.
18.
Kessler, R. C., & Greenberg, D. F. (1981). Linear panel analysis: Models of quantitative change. New York: Academic Press.
19.
Mardsen, P. (1990). Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 435-463.
20.
Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7, 349-364.
21.
Nelson, R. (1989). The strength of strong ties: Social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 377-401.
22.
Rao, P., & Miller, R. L. (1971). Applied econometrics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
23.
Rogosa, D. (1980). A critique of cross-lagged correlation. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 245-258.
24.
Rogosa, D., Brandt, D., & Zimowski, M. (1982). A growth curve approach to measuring change. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 726-748.
25.
Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Simon & Schuster.
26.
Stevenson, W. B., & Gilly, M. C. (1993). Problem solving networks in organizations: Intentional design and emergent structure. Social Science Research, 22, 92-113.
27.
Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674-698.
28.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35-67.
29.
Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In D. R. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology, 1977 (pp. 84-136). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
