IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v69y2023i2p1092-1115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What (Exactly) Is Novelty in Networks? Unpacking the Vision Advantages of Brokers, Bridges, and Weak Ties

Author

Listed:
  • Sinan Aral

    (MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142)

  • Paramveer S. Dhillon

    (School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109)

Abstract

The strength of weak ties and brokerage theory both rely on the argument that weak bridging ties deliver novel information to create “vision advantages” for actors in brokerage positions. However, our conceptualization of novelty is itself fundamentally underdeveloped. We, therefore, develop a theory of how three distinct types of novelty—diversity, non-redundancy, and uniqueness—combine with network structure to create vision advantages in social networks. We test this theory using panel data on an evolving corporate email network. Three main results emerge from our analysis. First, we confirm the diversity-bandwidth tradeoff (DBT) at the heart of the vision advantage. As brokers’ networks become more diverse, their channel bandwidth contracts, creating countervailing effects on access to novel information. Second, we uncover a mechanism driving the DBT, which helps explain differences in vision advantages across strong and weak ties. Strong, cohesive ties deliver greater information diversity and non-redundancy, whereas weak bridging ties contribute the most unique information (the information that is most different from what other contacts deliver). Third, we find network diversity (in contrast to network constraint) to be positively associated with longitudinal entropy, a measure of the accumulation of novel information over time. This suggests that weak bridging ties, which provide the most unique information through low bandwidth, structurally diverse channels, contribute the most to one’s aggregation of novel information over time. Collectively, these results take a step toward resolving a long-standing debate in network theory about whether strong, cohesive networks or weak bridging networks contribute more to vision advantages. This work firmly establishes that it depends.

Suggested Citation

  • Sinan Aral & Paramveer S. Dhillon, 2023. "What (Exactly) Is Novelty in Networks? Unpacking the Vision Advantages of Brokers, Bridges, and Weak Ties," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1092-1115, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:69:y:2023:i:2:p:1092-1115
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2022.4377
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4377
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4377?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Rodan & Charles Galunic, 2004. "More than network structure: how knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(6), pages 541-562, June.
    2. Morten T. Hansen, 2002. "Knowledge Networks: Explaining Effective Knowledge Sharing in Multiunit Companies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 232-248, June.
    3. Marshall Van Alstyne & Erik Brynjolfsson, 2005. "Global Village or Cyber-Balkans? Modeling and Measuring the Integration of Electronic Communities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(6), pages 851-868, June.
    4. Sinan Aral & Erik Brynjolfsson & Marshall Van Alstyne, 2012. "Information, Technology, and Information Worker Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(3-part-2), pages 849-867, September.
    5. Ray Reagans & Ezra W. Zuckerman, 2001. "Networks, Diversity, and Productivity: The Social Capital of Corporate R&D Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 502-517, August.
    6. Duncan J. Watts & Steven H. Strogatz, 1998. "Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6684), pages 440-442, June.
    7. Wu, Fang & Huberman, Bernardo A. & Adamic, Lada A. & Tyler, Joshua R., 2004. "Information flow in social groups," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 337(1), pages 327-335.
    8. Ronald S. Burt, 2008. "Information and structural holes: comment on Reagans and Zuckerman," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(5), pages 953-969, October.
    9. Saramäki, Jari & Kaski, Kimmo, 2004. "Scale-free networks generated by random walkers," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 341(C), pages 80-86.
    10. Arun Sundararajan & Foster Provost & Gal Oestreicher-Singer & Sinan Aral, 2013. "Research Commentary ---Information in Digital, Economic, and Social Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 883-905, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shan Huang & Yuan Yuan & Yi Ji, 2024. ""The Strength of Weak Ties" Varies Across Viral Channels," Papers 2408.03579, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lynn Wu, 2013. "Social Network Effects on Productivity and Job Security: Evidence from the Adoption of a Social Networking Tool," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 30-51, March.
    2. Arun Sundararajan & Foster Provost & Gal Oestreicher-Singer & Sinan Aral, 2013. "Research Commentary ---Information in Digital, Economic, and Social Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 883-905, December.
    3. Sinan Aral & Erik Brynjolfsson & Marshall Van Alstyne, 2012. "Information, Technology, and Information Worker Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(3-part-2), pages 849-867, September.
    4. Forrest Briscoe & Michelle Rogan, 2016. "Coordinating Complex Work: Knowledge Networks, Partner Departures, and Client Relationship Performance in a Law Firm," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(8), pages 2392-2411, August.
    5. Rajat Khanna & Isin Guler, 2022. "Degree assortativity in collaboration networks and invention performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(7), pages 1402-1430, July.
    6. Bertolotti, Fabiola & Mattarelli, Elisa & Vignoli, Matteo & Macrì, Diego Maria, 2015. "Exploring the relationship between multiple team membership and team performance: The role of social networks and collaborative technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 911-924.
    7. Fu-Sheng Tsai & Gayle Baugh & Shih-Chieh Fang & Julia Lin, 2014. "Contingent contingency: Knowledge heterogeneity and new product development performance revisited," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 149-169, March.
    8. Soda, Giuseppe & Zaheer, Akbar & Sun, Xiaoming & Cui, Wentian, 2021. "Brokerage evolution in innovation contexts: Formal structure, network neighborhoods and knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    9. Rizova, Polly S. & Gupta, Samir & Maltz, Elliot N. & Walker, Robert W., 2018. "Overcoming equivocality on projects in the fuzzy front end: Bringing social networks back in," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 40-55.
    10. Lutter, Mark, 2014. "Creative success and network embeddedness: Explaining critical recognition of film directors in Hollywood, 1900-2010," MPIfG Discussion Paper 14/11, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    11. Swart, Juani & Powell, John, 2012. "An analytical theory of knowledge behaviour in networks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(3), pages 807-817.
    12. Walter, Jorge & Lechner, Christoph & Kellermanns, Franz W., 2007. "Knowledge transfer between and within alliance partners: Private versus collective benefits of social capital," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 698-710, July.
    13. Massimo Maoret & Marco Tortoriello & Daniela Iubatti, 2020. "Big Fish, Big Pond? The Joint Effect of Formal and Informal Core/Periphery Positions on the Generation of Incremental Innovations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 1538-1559, November.
    14. Nisar, Tahir M. & Prabhakar, Guru & Strakova, Lubica, 2019. "Social media information benefits, knowledge management and smart organizations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 264-272.
    15. Casanueva, Cristóbal & Castro, Ignacio & Galán, José L., 2013. "Informational networks and innovation in mature industrial clusters," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(5), pages 603-613.
    16. Wenjing Wang & Yiwei Liu, 2021. "Community-level characteristics and member firms’ invention: evidence from university–industry innovation community in China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8913-8934, November.
    17. Keeran Kowlaser & Helena Barnard, 2016. "Tie Breadth, Tie Strength And The Location Of Ties: The Value Of Ties Inside An Emerging Mnc To Team Innovation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(01), pages 1-31, January.
    18. Alnuaimi, Tufool & Opsahl, Tore & George, Gerard, 2012. "Innovating in the periphery: The impact of local and foreign inventor mobility on the value of Indian patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1534-1543.
    19. Tingting Song & Qian Tang & Jinghua Huang, 2019. "Triadic Closure, Homophily, and Reciprocation: An Empirical Investigation of Social Ties Between Content Providers," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 912-926, September.
    20. Ishtiaq Mahmood & Chi-Nien Chung & Will Mitchell, 2013. "The Evolving Impact of Combinatorial Opportunities and Exhaustion on Innovation by Business Groups as Market Development Increases: The Case of Taiwan," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(5), pages 1142-1161, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:69:y:2023:i:2:p:1092-1115. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.