Dobras estruturais: ruptura generativa em grupos sobrepostos Outros Idiomas

ID:
1791
Resumo:
Os grupos empresariais enfrentam um desafio duplo: reconhecer e implementar novas ideias. O presente artigo sugere que o empreendedorismo está mais relacionado com a geração de novos conhecimentos, por meio da recombinação de recursos, do que com a importação de ideias. Em contraste com a perspectiva “intermediação mais fechamento”, enfocamos a sobreposição de estruturas coesas de grupos. Ao analisar processos de intercoesão de redes, identificamos uma topologia de rede distinta: a dobra estrutural. Os atores de uma dobra estrutural são membros de múltiplos grupos, o que facilita o acesso familiar a diversos recursos. Nosso conjunto de dados permite observar laços pessoais entre as 1.696 maiores empresas húngaras de 1987 a 2001. Primeiro, testamos se dobras estruturais contribuem para o desempenho de grupos. Segundo, como o empreendedorismo é um processo de ruptura generativa, testamos a contribuição das dobras estruturais para a instabilidade do grupo. Terceiro, passamos de métodos dinâmicos à análise histórica de redes, e demonstramos que a coerência é uma propriedade de genealogias entrelaçadas de coesão, construídas por meio de repetidas separações e reunificações.
Citação ABNT:
VEDRES, B.; STARK, D. Dobras estruturais: ruptura generativa em grupos sobrepostos. Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 50, n. 2, p. 215-240, 2010.
Citação APA:
Vedres, B., & Stark, D. (2010). Dobras estruturais: ruptura generativa em grupos sobrepostos. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 50(2), 215-240.
Link Permanente:
http://www.spell.org.br/documentos/ver/1791/dobras-estruturais--ruptura-generativa-em-grupos-sobrepostos/i/pt-br
Tipo de documento:
Artigo
Idioma:
Português
Referências:
BAUM, J. A. C.; MCEVILY, B.; ROWLEY, T. Better with age: the longevity and the performance implications of bridging and closure. Working paper n. 1032282. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, 2007.

BREIGER, R. L. The duality of persons and groups. Social Forces, v. 53, n. 2, p. 181-190, 1974.

BRUDNER, L. A.; WHITE, D. R. Class, property, and structural endogamy: visualizing networked histories. Theory and Society, v. 26, p. 161-208, 1997.

BURRIS, V. Interlocking directorates and political cohesion among corporate elites. American Journal of Sociology, v. 111, n. 1, p. 249-283, 2005.

BURT, R. S. Brokerage and Closure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

BURT, R. S. Information and structural holes: comment on Reagans and Zuckerman. Industrial and Corporate Change, v. 17, n. 5, p. 953-969, 2008.

BURT, R. S. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.

DEWEY, J. The pattern of inquiry (1938). In: HICKMAN, L. A.; ALEXANDER, T. M. (Eds) The Essential Dewey, v. 2, Ethics, Logic, Psychology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1998. p. 169-179.

DODDS, P. S.; WATTS, D. J.; SABEL, C. F. Information exchange and the robustness of organizational networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 100, n. 21, p.12.516-12.521, 2003.

EVERETT, M. G.; BORGATTI, S. P. Analyzing clique overlap. Connections, v. 21, n, p. 49-61, 1998.

FERNANDEZ-MATEO, I. Who pays the price of brokerage? Transferring constraint through price setting in the staffing sector. American Sociological Review, v. 72, n. 2, p. 291-317, 2007.

FESTINGER, L.; SCHACHTER, S.; BACK, K. W. Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing. New York: Harper, 1950.

FIELD, S.; FRANK, K. A.; SCHILLER, K.; RIEGLE-CRUMB, C.; MULLER, C. Identifying positions from affiliation networks: preserving the duality of people and events. Social Networks, v. 28, n. 97-123, 2006.

FIGYELÖ. Kétszázak klubja 2001. In: FIGYELÖ Top 200. FREEMAN, L. C. (1992). The sociological concept of “group”: an empirical test of two models. American Journal of Sociology, v. 98, n. 1, p. 152-166, 2002.

FRIEDKIN, N. E. Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, v. 30, p. 409-425, 2004.

GOULD, R. V. Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity about Social Rank Breeds Conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

GRANOVETTER, M. Business groups and social organization. In: SMELSER, N.; SWEDBERG, R. (Eds) Handbook of Economic Sociology, 2. ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.; New York: Russell Sage, 2005. p. 429-450.

GRANOVETTER, M. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, v. 91, n. 3, p. 481-510, 1985.

GRANOVETTER, M. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, v. 78, n. 6, p. 1360-1380, 1973.

KHANNA, T.; RIVKIN, J. W. Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal v. 22, p. 45-74, 2001.

KOGUT, B.; ZANDER, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, v. 3, p. 383397, 1992.

LESTER, RICHARD K.; MICHAEL J. PIORE. Innovation: The Missing Dimension. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 2004.

LINCOLN, J. R.; GERLACH, M. L.; Ahmadjian, C. L. Keiretsu networks and corporate performance in Japan. American Sociological Review, v. 61, p. 67-88, 1996.

MCPHERSON, M.; SMITH-LOVIN, L. Cohesion and membership duration: linking groups, relations and individuals in an ecology of affiliation. Advances in Group Processes, v. 19, p. 1-36, 2002.

MCPHERSON, M.; SMITH-LOVIN, L.; COOK, J. M. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, v. 27, p. 415444, 2001.

MIZRUCHI, M. S. What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, v. 22, p. 271-298, 1996.

MIZRUCHI, M. S.; BREWSTER STEARNS, L. A longitudinal study of the formation of interlocking directorates. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 33, p. 194-210, 1988.

MOODY, J. A.; WHITE, D. R. Structural cohesion and embeddedness: a hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review 68 (1): 103–27, 2003.

MORENO, J. L.; JENNINGS, H. H. Statistics of social configurations. Sociometry, v. 1, n. 3/4, p. 342-374, 1937.

NYÍRÖ, A.; SZAKADÁT, I. Politika Interaktív. Budapest: Aula, 1993. CD-ROM.

OBSTFELD, D. Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 50, n. 1, p 100-130, 2005.

PADGETT, J. F.; MCLEAN, P. D. Organizational invention and elite transformation: the birth of partnership systems in renaissance Florence. American Journal of Sociology, v. 111, n. 5, p 1463-1568, 2006.

PALLA, G.; BARABÁSI, A. L.; VICSEK, T. Quantifying social group evolution. Nature, v. 466, n. 7136, p. 664-667, 2007.

PALLA, G.; DERÉNYI, I.; FARKAS, I.; VICSEK, T. Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society. Nature, v. 435, n. 7043, p. 814-818, 2005.

POWELL, W. W.; WHITE, D. R.; KOPUT, K. W.; OWEN-SMITH, J. Network dynamics and field evolution: the growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, v. 110. n. 4, p. 1132-1205, 2005.

SCHUMPETER, J. A. Essays: On entrepreneurs, innovations, business cycles, and the evolution of capitalism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2003.

SCHUMPETER, J. A. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934.

SEWELL, JR., W. H. A theory of structure: duality, agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, v. 98, p. 1-29, 1992.

SIMMEL, G. (1922) Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. New York: Free Press, 1964.

SIMMEL, G. The persistence of social groups. American Journal of Sociology, v. 3, n. 5, p. 662-698, 1898.

SKVORETZ, J.; FAUST, K. Logit models for affiliation networks. Sociological Methodology, v. 29, p. 253-280, 1999.

SPICER, A.; MCDERMOTT, G. A.; KOGUT, B. Entrepreneurship and privatization in central Europe: the tenuous balance between destruction and creation. Academy of Management Review, v. 25, p. 630-649, 2000.

STARK, D. Recombinant property in East European capitalism. American Journal of Sociology, v. 101, n. 4, p. 993-1027, 1996.

STARK, D. The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.

STARK, D.; BRUSZT, L. Post socialist Pathways: Transforming Politics and Property in East Central Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

STARK, D.; VEDRES, B. Social times of network spaces: network sequences and foreign investment in Hungary. American Journal of Sociology, v. 111, n. 5, p. 1367-1412, 2006.

THYE, S. R.; YOON, J.; LAWLER, E. J. The theory of relational cohesion: review of a research program. Advances in Group Processes, v. 19, p. 139-166, 2002.

USEEM, M. Corporations and the corporate elite. annual Review of Sociology, v. 6, p. 41-77, 1980.

UZZI, B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 42, p. 35-67, 1997.

UZZI, B.; SPIRO, J. Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, v. 111, n. 2, p. 447-504, 2005.

WASSERMAN, S.; FAUST, K. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

WATTS, D. J. Networks, dynamics and the small-world phenomenon. American Journal of Sociology, v. 105, p. 493-527, 1999.

WATTS, D. J. The “new” science of networks. Annual Review of Sociology, v. 30, p. 243-270, 2004.

WEITZMAN, M. L. Recombinant growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, v. 113, n. 2, p. 331-360, 1998.

WHITE, D. R.; JOHANSEN, U. C. Network Analysis and Ethnographic Problems: Process Models of a Turkish Nomad Clan. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005.

WHITE, H. C.; BOORMAN, S. A.; BREIGER, R. L. Social structure from multiple networks, I: block models of roles and positions. American Journal of Sociology, v. 81, n. 4, p. 730-780, 1976.

WUCHTY, S.; JONES, B.; UZZI, B. The increasing dominance of teams in the production of knowledge. Science, v. 316, p. 1036-1039, 2007.