Recent scholarship suggests the importance of school district offices in supporting reform. These studies provide strategies for building relations between central offices and sites in order to improve change efforts. However, what is frequently overlooked is that organizational reform efforts are socially constructed. Therefore, examining the underlying reform-related social networks may provide insight into how relational structures support or constrain efforts at reform. This longitudinal case study draws upon social network analysis and interviews to examine the reform-related knowledge, advice, and innovation network structures of central office and site leaders in a district facing sanction for underperformance and engaging a districtwide reform. Findings indicate that over time, the networks increased the number of superficial interactions, and more frequent exchanges remained unchanged, resulting in a centralized network structure.
AgullardK.GoughnourD. S. (2006). Central office inquiry: Assessing organization, roles, and actions to support school improvement. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
2.
AhujaG. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.
3.
AlbrechtT. L.BachB. W. (1997). Communication in complex organizations: Arelational approach. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
4.
BakerW. E.IyerA. (1992). Information networks and market behavior. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 16, 305–332.
5.
BakkenesI.De BrabanderC.ImantsJ. (1999). Teacher isolation and communication network analysis in primary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 166–202.
6.
BalkundiP.HarrisonD. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inferences about network structures effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 49–68.
7.
BalkundiP.KilduffM. (2005). The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 941–961.
8.
BartolK. M.ZhangX. (2007). Networks and leadership development: Building linkages for capacity acquisition and capital accrual. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 388–401.
9.
BartunekJ. (2001, August). Remarks on social networks in organizational change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington DC.
10.
BoeijeH. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36, 391–409.
11.
BorgattiS.CrossR. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.
12.
BorgattiS.EverettM. (1999). Models of core periphery structures. Social Networks, 21, 375–395.
13.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis [Computer software]. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
14.
BorgattiS.FosterP. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: Areview and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013.
15.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of social capital. In RichardsonJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood.
16.
BrassD. J. (1981). Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker satisfaction and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 331–348.
17.
BrassD. J. (1984). Being in the right place at the right time: A structural analysis of individual differences in an organization. Administration Science Quarterly, 29, 518–539.
18.
BrassD. J. (1995). A social network perspective on human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 39–79.
19.
BrassD. J.GalaskiewiczJ.GreveH. R.TsaiW. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 795–817.
20.
BrazerS. D.KellerL. R. (2006). A conceptual framework for multiple stakeholder educational decision making. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 1(3), 1–14.
21.
BrykA. S.SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for school improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
22.
BurchP.SpillaneJ. (2004). Leading from the middle: Mid-level district staff and instructional improvement. Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
23.
BurkW. J.SteglichC.SnijdersT. (2007). Beyond dyadic interdependence: Actor-oriented models for co-evolving social networks and individual behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 397–404.
24.
BurtR. S. (1992). Structural holes: The structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
BurtR. S. (1997). A note on social capital and network content. Social Networks, 19(4), 355–373.
26.
BurtR. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. In SuttonR. I.StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1–83). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
CaracelliV. J.GreeneJ. C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 195–207.
29.
CarleyK.KrackhardtD. (1999). Cognitive inconsistencies and non-symmetric friendship. Social Networks, 18(1), 1–27.
30.
Center on Education Policy. (2006). From the Capital to the classroom. Washington, DC: Author.
31.
ChrispeelsJ. (2004). Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
ChristensenC. M.JohnsonC.HornM. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
33.
CoburnC. E.RussellJ. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.
34.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
35.
ColemanJ. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
CoplandM. A.KnappM. S. (2006). Connecting leadership with learning: A framework for reflection, planning and action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
37.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
CrossR.BakerW.ParkerA. (2003). What creates energy in organizations?Sloan Management Review, 44(4), 51–57.
39.
CrossR.BorgattiS.ParkerA. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25–46.
40.
CrossR.ParkerA. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
41.
CummingsJ.CrossR. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Social Networks, 25, 197–210.
42.
DalyA. J. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 168–216.
43.
DalyA. J.FinniganK. (2009). A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10833-009-9102-5.
44.
DalyA. J.MoolenaarN.BolivarJ.BurkeP. (in press). Relationships in reform: The role of teachers’ social networks. Journal of Educational Administration.
45.
DeLangeD.AgneessensF.WaegeH. (2004). Asking social network questions: Aquality assessment of different measures. Advances in Methodology, 1(2), 351–378.
46.
DikaS. L.SinghK. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72, 31–60.
47.
DykP. H.WilsonS. M. (1999). Family-based social capital considerations as predictors of attainments among Appalachian youth. Sociological Inquiry, 69(3), 477–503.
48.
EgelhoffW. G. (1988). Organizing the multinational enterprise: An information-processing perspective. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
49.
ElmoreR. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
50.
FinniganK.GrossB. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low-performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 594–629.
51.
FinniganK.StewartT. (in press). Leading change under pressure: An examination of principal leadership in low-performing schools. Journal of School Leadership.
52.
FreemanL. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.
53.
FriedkinN.SlaterM. (1994). School leadership and performance: A social network approach. Sociology of Education, 67, 139–157.
54.
FullanM. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press.
55.
GargiuloM.BernassiM. (1999). The dark side of social capital. In LeendersA. J.GabbayS. M. (Eds.), Corporate social capital and liability (pp. 298–322). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
56.
GhoshalS.KorineH.SzulanskiG. (1994). Interunit communication in multinational corporations. Management Science, 40(1), 96–110.
57.
GiddensA. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
58.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
59.
GranovetterM. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
60.
GranovetterM. (1986). The micro-structure of school desegregation. In PragerJ.LongshoreD.SeemanM. (Eds.), School desegregation research: New directions in situational analysis (pp. 81–110). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
61.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
62.
GranovetterM. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In MarsdenP.V.LinN. (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105–130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
63.
GuzzoR. A.SheaG. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations. In DunnetteM. D.HoughL. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 269–314). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
64.
HannanM. T.FreemanJ. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. Annual Review of Sociology, 49, 149–649.
65.
HannanM. T.PolosL.CarrollG. (2004). The logics of organization theory: Audiences, codes and ecologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
HansenM. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.
68.
HargreavesA.FinkD. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
69.
HarrisA.ChrispeelsJ. H. (Eds.). (2006). Improving schools and educational systems: International perspectives. London, UK: Routledge.
70.
HaythornthwaiteC. (2001). Tie strength and the impact of new media. In: Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. 1 (pp. 1019–1029). Maui, HI HICSS.
71.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
72.
HightowerA. M.KnappM. S.MarshJ. A.McLaughlinM. W. (Eds.). (2002). School districts and instructional renewal. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
73.
HiteJ.WilliamsE.BaughS. (2005). Multiple networks of public school administrators: An analysis of network content and structure. International Journal on Leadership in Education, 8(2), 91–122.
74.
HiteJ.WilliamsE.HiltonS.BaughS. (2006). The role of administrator characteristics on perceptions of innovativeness among public school administrators. Education and Urban Society, 38(2), 160–187.
75.
HonigM. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators’ roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 39, 292–338.
HonigM. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357–383.
78.
HonigM. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How socio-cultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district-central-office administrators’ participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114, 627–664.
79.
HonigM.CoburnC. (2008). Evidence based decision-making in district central offices. Educational Policy, 22(4), 578–608.
80.
HorvatE.WeiningerE.LaureauA. (2003). From social ties to social capital: Class differences in the relations between schools and parents network. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 319–351.
81.
HubbardL.MehanH.SteinM. (2006). Reform as learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
82.
KilduffM.KrackhardtD. (2008). Interpersonal networks in organizations: Cognition, personality, dynamics, and culture: Structural analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
83.
KilduffM.TsaiW. (2003). Social networks and organizations. London, UK: Sage.
84.
KimT.OhH.SwaminathanA. (2006). Framing interorganizational network change: A network inertia perspective. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 704–720.
85.
KnappM. S.CoplandM. A.TalbertJ. A. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for school and district leaders. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
86.
KossinetsG.WattsD. J. (2006). Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science, 311, 88–90.
87.
KrackhardtD. (1994). Constraints on the interactive organization as an ideal type. In HeckscherC.DonnellonA. (Eds.), The post-bureaucratic organization: New perspectives on organizational change (pp. 211–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
88.
KrackhardtD. (2001, August). Network conditions of organizational change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.
89.
KrackhardtD.SternR. (1988). Informal networks and organizational crises: Anexperimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(2), 123–140.
90.
LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62.
91.
LeithwoodK.LouisK. S.AndersonS.WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
92.
LeithwoodK.MascallB.StraussT.SacksR.MemonN.YashkinaA. (2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37–67.
93.
LimaJ. A. (2003). Trained for isolation: The impact of departmental cultures on student teachers’ views and practices of collaboration. Journal of Education for Teaching, 29(3), 197–218.
94.
LimaJ. A. (2004). Social networks in teaching. In HernandezF.GoodsonI. F. (Eds.), Social geographies of educational change (pp. 29–46). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
95.
LimaJ. A. (2007). Teachers’ professional development in departmentalized, loosely coupled organizations: Lessons for school improvement from a case study of two curriculum departments. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(3), 273–301.
96.
LinN. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.
97.
LinN. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
98.
MalenB.CroningerR.MunceyD.JonesD. (2002). Reconstituting schools: Testing the theory of action. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 113–132.
MarsdenP. V.CampbellK. E. (1984). Measuring tie-strength. Social Forces, 63, 482–501.
101.
MarshJ. A. (2002). How districts relate to states, schools, and communities: A review of emerging literature. In HightowerA. M. (Ed.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 25–39). Amsterdam, NY: Teachers College Press.
102.
MarshJ. A.KerrK. A.IkemotoG. S.DarilekH.SuttorpM.ZimmerR. W.BarneyH. (2005). The role of the district in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
103.
MassellD. (2000). The district role in building capacity: Four strategies (CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-32). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
104.
MassellD.GoertzM. (1999, April). Local strategies for building capacity: The district role in supporting instructional reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
105.
McGrathC.KrackhardtD. (2003). Network conditions for organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 324–336.
106.
McLaughlinM.TalbertJ. (2003). Reforming districts: How districts support school reform. Seattle: University of Washington.
107.
McLaughlinM. W.TalbertJ. W. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Palo Alto, CA: Context Center on Secondary School Teaching.
108.
McPheeR. D.CormanS. R. (1995). An activity-based theory of communication networks in organizations, applied to the case of a church. Communication Monographs, 62, 132–151.
109.
McPhersonJ. M.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. In HaganJ.CookK. S. (Eds.), Annual review of sociology (Vol. 27, pp. 415–444). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
110.
MehraA.DixonA. L.BrassD. J.RobertsonB. (2006). The social network ties of group leaders: Implications for group performance and leader reputation. Organization Science, 17, 64–79.
111.
MilesM. B.HubermanM. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
112.
MintropH. (2004). Schools on probation: How accountability works. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
113.
MintropH.SundermanG. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement—and why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38, 353–364.
114.
MintropH.TrujilloT. (2005). Corrective action in low-performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48), 1–27. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n48/
115.
MintropH.TrujilloT. (2007). The practical relevance of accountability systems for school improvement: A descriptive analysis of California schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 319–352.
116.
MohrmanS.TenkasiR.MohrmanA. (2003). The role of networks in fundamental organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 301–323.
117.
MongeP. R.ContractorN. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
118.
MongeP. R.EisenbergE. M. (1987). Emergent communication networks. JablinF.M.PutnamL. L.RobertsK. H.PorterL. W. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 304–342). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
119.
MoolenaarN.DalyA. J.SleegersP. (in press). Ties with potential: Social network structure and innovation in Dutch schools. Teachers College Record.
120.
MullenC.KochanF. (2000). Creating a collaborative leadership network: An organic view of change. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(3), 183–200.
NewmannF.WehlageG. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
123.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301.
124.
O’DayJ. (2004). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. In FuhrmanS.ElmoreR. (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems (pp. 15–43). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
125.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
126.
PenuelW. R.FrankK. A.KrauseA. (2006). The distribution of resources and expertise and the implementation of schoolwide reform initiatives. In BarabS. A.HayK.E.HickeyD. T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 522–528). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
127.
PenuelW. R.RielM. R.KrauseA.FrankK. A. (2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record, 1111), 124–163.
128.
PortesA.SensenbrennerJ. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1320–1350.
129.
PutnamR. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65–78.
130.
RaiderH.KrackhardtD. (2001). Intraorganizational networks. In BaumJ. A. C. (Ed.), Companion to organizations (pp. 58–74). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
131.
ReagansR.McEvilyB. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.
132.
ReagansR.ZuckermanE. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of R&D teams. Organization Science, 12, 502–517.
133.
RorrerA. K.SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–358.
134.
SchwarzG.ShulmanA. (2007). The patterning of limited structural change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(6), 829–846.
135.
ScottJ. (2000). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
136.
SmylieM. A.EvansA. E. (2006). Social capital and the problem of implementation. In HonigM. I. (Eds.), New directions in education policy: Confronting complexity (pp. 187–208). Albany: State University of New York Press.
137.
SmylieM. A.WenzelS. A.FendtC. R. (2003). The Chicago Annenberg challenge: Lessons on leadership for school development. In MurphyJ.DatnowA. (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms (pp. 135–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
138.
SnijdersT.SteglichC.SchweinbergerM. (2007). Modeling the co-evolution of networks and behavior. In van MontfortK.OudH.SatorraA. (Eds.), Longitudinal models in the behavioral and related sciences (pp. 41–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
139.
SnijdersT.SteglichC.SchweinbergerM.HuismanM. (2008). Manual for SIENA Version 3. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford, Department of Statistics.
140.
SnijdersT.SteglichC.Van de BuntG. G. (2010). Introduction to actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32(1), 44–60.
141.
SongS.NerurS.TengJ. (2007). An exploratory study on the roles of network structure and knowledge processing orientation in the work unit knowledge management. Advances in Information Systems, 38(2), 8–26.
142.
SpillaneJ. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policy-makers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 141–179.
143.
SpillaneJ. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
144.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.GomezL. M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition: The role of human, social, and distributed cognition in framing policy implementation. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 47–64). Albany: State University of New York Press.
145.
SpradleyJ. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
146.
Stanton-SalazarR. D.DornbuschS. M. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology of Education, 68, 116–135.
147.
StawB. M.SandelandsL. E.DuttonJ. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524.
148.
SteglichC.SnijdersT.WestP. (2006). Applying SIENA: An illustrative analysis of the coevolution of adolescents’ friendship networks, taste in music, and alcohol consumption. Methodology, 2, 48–56.
149.
StevensonW.BartunekJ.BorgattiS. (2003). Front and backstage processes of an organizational restructuring effort. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 243–258.
150.
StollL.LouisK. S. (Eds.). (2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas. London/New York: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
151.
StuartT. E. (1998). Network positions and propensities to collaborate: An investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 43, 668–698.
152.
StullichS.EisnerE.McCraryJ.RoneyC. (2006). National assessment of Title I: Interim report, Vol. I. Implementation of Title I. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education.
153.
SundermanG. L.KimJ. S.OrfieldG. (2005). NCLB meets school realities: Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
154.
SupovitzJ. A. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
155.
SzulanskiG. (1996). Exploring stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.
156.
Tai-YoungK.OhH.SwaminathanA. (2006). Framing interorganizational network change: A network inertia perspective. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 704–720.
157.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
158.
TenkasiR.ChesmoreM. (2003). Social networks and planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 281–300.
159.
TogneriW.AndersonS. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
160.
TsaiW. (2000). Social capital strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 925–939.
161.
TsaiW. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.
162.
TsaiW. (2002). Social structure of “coopetition” within a multi-unit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179–190.
163.
TsaiW.GhoshalS. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.
164.
UzziB. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674–698.
165.
UzziB. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.
166.
VolkerB.FlapH. (2001). Weak ties as a liability: The case of East Germany. Rationality and Society, 13(4), 397–428.
167.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1998). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
168.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
