Extant research in organizational networks has provided critical insights into understanding the benefits of occupying a brokerage position. More recently, researchers have moved beyond the brokerage position to consider the brokering processes (arbitration and collaboration) brokers engage in and their implications for performance. However, brokering processes are typically measured using scales that reflect individuals’ orientation toward engaging in a behavior, rather than the behavior itself. In this article, we propose a measure that captures the behavioral process of brokering. The measure indicates the extent to which actors engage in arbitration versus collaboration based on sequences of time stamped relational events, such as emails, message boards, and recordings of meetings. We demonstrate the validity of our measure as well as its predictive ability. By leveraging the temporal information inherent in sequences of relational events, our behavioral measure of brokering creates opportunities for researchers to explore the dynamics of brokerage and their impact on individuals, and also paves the way for a systematic examination of the temporal dynamics of networks.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2.
AralS.Van AlstyneM. (2011). The diversity–bandwidth trade-off. American Journal of Sociology, 117(1), 90–171. https://doi.org/10.1086/661238
3.
AvenB. L. (2015). The paradox of corrupt networks: An analysis of organizational crime at Enron. Organization Science, 26(4), 980–996. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0983
4.
BaumJ. A. C.McEvilyB.RowleyT. J. (2012). Better with age? Tie longevity and the performance implications of bridging and closure. Organization Science, 23(2), 529–546. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2008.33625391
5.
BernardH. R.KillworthP. D.SailerL. (1981). Summary of research on informant accuracy in network data, and on the reverse small world problem. Connections, 4(2), 11–25.
6.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis (6th ed.). Analytic Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6170-8_316
7.
BorgattiS. P.MehraA.BrassD. J.LabiancaG. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821
BrashearsM. E. (2013). Humans use compression heuristics to improve the recall of social networks. Scientific Reports, 3, 1513. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01513
BurtR. S. (2007). Secondhand brokerage: Evidence on the importance of local structure for managers, bankers and analysts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 119–148. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24162082
BurtR. S. (2019). Structural holes capstone, cautions, and enthusiasms (Working draft). To appear in SmallM. L.PerryB. L.PescosolidoB.SmithN. (Eds.), Personal networks: Classic readings and new directions. Cambridge University Press. http://ronaldsburt.com/research/files/SHCCE.pdf
CarpenterC. J. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of health belief model variables in predicting behavior. Health Communication, 25(8), 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2010.521906
19.
ColquittJ. A.SabeyT. B.RodellJ. B.HillE. T. (2019). Content validation guidelines: Evaluation criteria for definitional correspondence and definitional distinctiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(10), 1243–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000406
20.
CronbachL. J.MeehlP. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
21.
DeVellisR. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Sage.
22.
EmirbayerM.GoodwinJ. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1411–1454. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21742-6_41
FalzonL.QuintaneE.DunnJ.RobinsG. (2018). Embedding time in positions: Temporal measures of centrality for social network analysis. Social Networks, 54, 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2018.02.002
25.
FangR.LandisB.ZhangZ.AndersonM. H.ShawJ. D.KilduffM. (2015). Integrating personality and social networks: A meta-analysis of personality, network position, and work outcomes in organizations. Organization Science, 26(4), 1243–1260. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0972
FurnariS. (2014). Interstitial spaces: Microinteraction settings and the genesis of new practices between institutional fields. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 439–462. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0045
28.
FurnariS.RolbinaM. (2018). Brokerage styles and interaction rituals in creative projects: Toward an interactionist perspective on brokerage. In JonesC.MaoretM. (Eds.), Frontiers of creative industries: Exploring structural and categorical dynamics(Research in the Sociology of Organization, Vol. 55, pp. 17–45). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0733-558X20180000055002
29.
GibsonD. R. (2011). Avoiding catastrophe: The interactional production of possibility during the Cuban Missile Crisis. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), 361–419. https://doi.org/10.1086/661761
30.
GoldbergA.SrivastavaS. B.ManianV. G.MonroeW.PottsC. (2016). Fitting in or standing out? The tradeoffs of structural and cultural embeddedness. American Sociological Review, 81(6), 1190–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416671873
31.
GondranM.MinouxM. (2008). Graphs, dioids and semirings: New models and algorithms(Operations Research / Computer Science Interfaces Series, Vol. 41). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75450-5
32.
GouldR. V.FernandezR. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/270949
33.
GrosserT. J.ObstfeldD.LabiancaG.BorgattiS. P. (2019). Measuring mediation and separation brokerage orientations: A further step toward studying the social network brokerage process. Academy of Management Discoveries, 5(2), 114–136. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2017.0110
34.
GrundT. U. (2012). Network structure and team performance: The case of English Premier League soccer teams. Social Networks, 34(4), 682–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2012.08.004
35.
HoyleR. H.HarrisM. J.JuddC. M. (2002). Research methods in social relations (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage.
36.
IngramP.MorrisM. W. (2007). Do people mix at mixers? Structure, homophily, and the “life of the party.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(4), 558–585. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.4.558
37.
JonesP. (2020). Diana in the world of men: A character network approach to analysing gendered vocal representation in Wonder Woman. Feminist Media Studies, 20(1), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1510846
38.
KauppilaO. P.BizziL.ObstfeldD. (2018). Connecting and creating: Tertius iungens, individual creativity, and strategic decision processes. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 697–719. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2728
39.
KilduffM.LeeJ. W. (2018). David Obstfeld: Getting new things done: Networks, brokerage, and the assembly of innovate action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(2), NP26–NP29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839218757461
40.
KleinbaumA. M. (2012). Organizational misfits and the origins of brokerage in intrafirm networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(3), 407–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212461141
41.
KontoleonN.FalzonL.PattisonP. (2013). Algebraic structures for dynamic networks. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 57(6), 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2013.11.002
42.
KwonS. W.RondiE.LevinD. Z.De MassisA.BrassD. J. (2020). Network brokerage: An integrative review and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 46(6), 1092–1120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320914694
43.
LambieG. W.BlountA. J.MullenP. R. (2017). Establishing content-oriented evidence for psychological assessments. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50(4), 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2017.1336930
Long LingoE.O’MahonyS. (2010). Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 47–81. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.1.47
46.
MarsdenP. V. (1982). Brokerage behavior in restricted exchange networks. Social Structure and Network Analysis, 7(4), 341–410.
47.
McEvilyB.SodaG.TortorielloM. (2014). More formally: Rediscovering the missing link between formal organization and informal social structure. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 299–345. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.885252
48.
MehraA.BorgattiS. P.SoltisS.FloydT.HalginD. S.OfemB.Lopez-KidwellV. (2014). Imaginary worlds: Using visual network scales to capture perceptions of social networks. In BrassD. J.LabiancaG.MehraA.HalginD. S.BorgattiS. P. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on organizational social networks(Research in the Sociology of Organization, Vol. 40, pp. 315–336). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2014)0000040016
ObstfeldD. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100–130. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.100
51.
ObstfeldD.BorgattiS. P.DavisJ. (2014). Brokerage as a process: Decoupling third party action from social network structure. In BrassD. J.LabiancaG.MehraA.HalginD. S.BorgattiS. P. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on organizational social networks(Research in the Sociology of Organization, Vol. 40, pp. 135–159). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2014)0000040007
PattisonP. E.FalzonL.KontoleonN. (2015). Social networks, algebra of. In WrightJ. D. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 22, pp. 478–484). Elsevier.
54.
QuintaneE. (2013). Comparing networks: A structural examination of the correspondence between behavioral and recall networks. In LusherD.KoskinenJ.RobinsG. L. (Eds.), Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theories, Methods and Applications. (Vol. 35, pp. 272–284). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894701
55.
QuintaneE.CarnabuciG. (2016). How do brokers broker? Tertius gaudens, tertius iungens, and the temporality of structural holes. Organization Science, 27(6), 1343–1360. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1091
56.
QuintaneE.KleinbaumA. M. (2011). Matter over mind? E-mail data and the measurement of social networks. Connections, 31(1), 20–41.
57.
SheeranP. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003
58.
SheeranP.WebbT. L. (2018). The road to hell: An overview of research on the intention–behavior gap. In OettingenG.SevincerA. T.GollwitzerP. (Eds.), The psychology of thinking about the future (p. 473–496). Guilford.
59.
SimmelG. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (K. H. Wolff, Ed.). Free Press.
60.
SodaG.TortorielloM.IorioA. (2018). Harvesting value from brokerage: Individual strategic orientation, structural holes, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 896–918. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0123
61.
SpiroE. S.ActonR. M.ButtsC. T. (2013). Extended structures of mediation: Re-examining brokerage in dynamic networks. Social Networks, 35(1), 130–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.02.001
62.
WassermanS.ScottJ.CarringtonP. J. (2005). Introduction. In CarringtonP. J.ScottJ.WassermanS. (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis(Structural analysis in the social sciences, Vol. 27, pp. 1–7). Cambridge University Press.
63.
WuchtyS.UzziB. (2011). Human communication dynamics in digital footsteps: A study of the agreement between self-reported ties and email networks. PLOS ONE, 6(11), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026972
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
