IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v26y2015i5p1447-1465.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reconnection Choices: Selecting the Most Valuable (vs. Most Preferred) Dormant Ties

Author

Listed:
  • Jorge Walter

    (Department of Strategic Management and Public Policy, School of Business, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052)

  • Daniel Z. Levin

    (Management and Global Business Department, Rutgers Business School–Newark and New Brunswick, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey 07102)

  • J. Keith Murnighan

    (Department of Management and Organizations, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208)

Abstract

Recent research has shown that reconnecting long-lost, dormant ties can yield tremendous value, often more than active ties. Yet two key research questions remain unanswered: which of a person’s many dormant ties provide the most value, and which are advice seekers most inclined to choose as reconnection targets? In the current study, we asked executives to seek advice on an important work project from two dormant ties (their first, most preferred choice plus one selected randomly from their next nine most preferred choices) and to respond to surveys before and after their reconnections. This two-stage design allowed us to make causal inferences about the executives’ advice-seeking preferences and the value of reconnecting certain types of dormant ties. Our results show that the most valuable reconnections are to people who provide novelty (by not having spent much time together in the past and having higher status) as well as engagement (by being trustworthy and willing to help). Our executive participants, however, preferred neither novelty nor engagement. Rather, the prospect of reconnecting can make people feel anxious. To avoid this discomfort, executives preferred contacts with whom they had spent a lot of time together in the past, thereby actually reducing novelty. Thus, our findings identify critical biases in executives’ reconnection preferences as well as insights into how to make more effective reconnections. Our discussion presents broader implications of these findings for advice seeking and social networks.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorge Walter & Daniel Z. Levin & J. Keith Murnighan, 2015. "Reconnection Choices: Selecting the Most Valuable (vs. Most Preferred) Dormant Ties," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 1447-1465, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:26:y:2015:i:5:p:1447-1465
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2015.0996
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0996
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2015.0996?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. Marco Tortoriello & Ray Reagans & Bill McEvily, 2012. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap: The Influence of Strong Ties, Network Cohesion, and Network Range on the Transfer of Knowledge Between Organizational Units," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1024-1039, August.
    2. Francesca Mariotti & Rick Delbridge, 2012. "Overcoming Network Overload and Redundancy in Interorganizational Networks: The Roles of Potential and Latent Ties," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 511-528, April.
    3. Ray Reagans & Linda Argote & Daria Brooks, 2005. "Individual Experience and Experience Working Together: Predicting Learning Rates from Knowing Who Knows What and Knowing How to Work Together," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(6), pages 869-881, June.
    4. D. Pfeffermann & C. J. Skinner & D. J. Holmes & H. Goldstein & J. Rasbash, 1998. "Weighting for unequal selection probabilities in multilevel models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 60(1), pages 23-40.
    5. Gary Solon & Steven J. Haider & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2015. "What Are We Weighting For?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(2), pages 301-316.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Edward Bishop Smith & Tanya Menon & Leigh Thompson, 2012. "Status Differences in the Cognitive Activation of Social Networks," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 67-82, February.
    8. Huang, Li & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2010. "What's in a name? Subliminally activating trusting behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 62-70, January.
    9. Rob Cross & Lee Sproull, 2004. "More Than an Answer: Information Relationships for Actionable Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 446-462, August.
    10. Manuel E. Sosa, 2011. "Where Do Creative Interactions Come From? The Role of Tie Content and Social Networks," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 1-21, February.
    11. Robert S. Huckman & Bradley R. Staats & David M. Upton, 2009. "Team Familiarity, Role Experience, and Performance: Evidence from Indian Software Services," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 85-100, January.
    12. M. Ann McFadyen & Matthew Semadeni & Albert A. Cannella, 2009. "Value of Strong Ties to Disconnected Others: Examining Knowledge Creation in Biomedicine," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 552-564, June.
    13. Paul M. Hirsch & Daniel Z. Levin, 1999. "Umbrella Advocates Versus Validity Police: A Life-Cycle Model," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 199-212, April.
    14. Aimée A. Kane, 2010. "Unlocking Knowledge Transfer Potential: Knowledge Demonstrability and Superordinate Social Identity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 643-660, June.
    15. Ferrin, Donald L. & Bligh, Michelle C. & Kohles, Jeffrey C., 2008. "It takes two to tango: An interdependence analysis of the spiraling of perceived trustworthiness and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 161-178, November.
    16. Daniel Z. Levin & Rob Cross, 2004. "The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1477-1490, November.
    17. Manuel E. Sosa, 2014. "Realizing the Need for Rework: From Task Interdependence to Social Networks," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 23(8), pages 1312-1331, August.
    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. Luke Rhee & Paul M. Leonardi, 2018. "Which pathway to good ideas? An attention‐based view of innovation in social networks," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 1188-1215, April.
    2. Shu, Rui & Ren, Shenggang & Zheng, Yi, 2018. "Building networks into discovery: The link between entrepreneur network capability and entrepreneurial opportunity discovery," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 197-208.
    3. D'Este, Pablo & Mc Kelvey, Maureen & Yegros-Yegros, Alfredo, 2018. "Innovation from science: the role of network content and legitimacy ties," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201802, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 28 Oct 2019.
    4. Mary M. Maloney & Priti Pradhan Shah & Mary Zellmer-Bruhn & Stephen L. Jones, 2019. "The Lasting Benefits of Teams: Tie Vitality After Teams Disband," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 260-279, March.
    5. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    6. Adrián A & Oscar Llopis & Pablo D’Este & Jordi Molas-Gallart, 2023. "Assessing the variety of collaborative practices in translational research: An analysis of scientists’ ego-networks," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 426-440.
    7. Tuan, Luu Trong, 2020. "Coach humility and player creativity: The roles of knowledge sharing and group diversity," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 284-301.
    8. Asadifard, Reza & Tabatabaeian, Seyed Habiboallah & Sofi, Jahanyar Bamdad & Taghva, Mohammad Reza, 2017. "A model for investigating the stability factors in formal science and technology collaborative networks: A case study of Iran," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 139-150.
    9. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda, 2017. "Inferring final organizational outcomes from intermediate outcomes of exploration and exploitation: the complexity link," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 61-93, March.
    10. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:426-440. is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Edward Bishop Smith & William Rand, 2018. "Simulating Macro-Level Effects from Micro-Level Observations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(11), pages 5405-5421, November.

    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. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    2. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    3. Parker, Owen N. & Mui, Rachel & Bhawe, Nachiket & Semadeni, Matthew, 2022. "Insight or ignorance: How collaborative history in a workgroup fits with project type to shape performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 154-167.
    4. Robert S. Huckman & Bradley R. Staats, 2011. "Fluid Tasks and Fluid Teams: The Impact of Diversity in Experience and Team Familiarity on Team Performance," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 310-328, July.
    5. Sameer B. Srivastava, 2015. "Intraorganizational Network Dynamics in Times of Ambiguity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    6. Khanna, Rajat, 2023. "Passing the torch of knowledge: Star death, collaborative ties, and knowledge creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    7. Tu, Jing, 2024. "Openness to international collaboration and tie strength in enhancing knowledge creation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    8. Céline Flipo & Pier Vittorio Mannucci & Kevyn Yong, 2023. "The impact of cultural tightness on the relationship between structural holes, tie strength, and creativity," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 54(2), pages 332-343, March.
    9. Sheen S. Levine & Michael J. Prietula, 2012. "How Knowledge Transfer Impacts Performance: A Multilevel Model of Benefits and Liabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1748-1766, December.
    10. Haibo Liu & Jürgen Mihm & Manuel E. Sosa & Manuel E. Sosa, 2018. "Where Do Stars Come From? The Role of Star vs. Nonstar Collaborators in Creative Settings," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1149-1169, December.
    11. Ambos, Tina C. & Tippmann, Esther & Nell, Phillip C., 2023. "Realizing subsidiary initiatives: A network mobilization view," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(6).
    12. Chollet, Barthélemy & Revet, Karine, 2023. "Digging deep or scratching the surface? Contingent innovation outcomes of seeking advice from geographically distant ties," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    13. Llopis, Oscar & DâEste, Pablo & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes, 2018. "Connections matter: the influence of network sparseness, network diversity and a tertius iungens orientation on innovation," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201801, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 28 Oct 2019.
    14. Li Li & Xinwen Bai & Yiyong Zhou, 2023. "A Social Resources Perspective of Employee Innovative Behavior and Outcomes: A Moderated Mediation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, February.
    15. Christoph Engel, 2022. "Lucky you: Your case is heard by a seasoned panel—Panel effects in the German Constitutional Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 1179-1221, December.
    16. Fabio Fonti & Massimo Maoret, 2016. "The direct and indirect effects of core and peripheral social capital on organizational performance," Post-Print hal-01478950, HAL.
    17. Alessandro Lomi & Dean Lusher & Philippa E. Pattison & Garry Robins, 2014. "The Focused Organization of Advice Relations: A Study in Boundary Crossing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 438-457, April.
    18. Ray Reagans & Param Vir Singh & Ramayya Krishnan, 2015. "Forgotten Third Parties: Analyzing the Contingent Association Between Unshared Third Parties, Knowledge Overlap, and Knowledge Transfer Relationships with Outsiders," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 1400-1414, October.
    19. Sheen S. Levine & Michael J. Prietula & Ann Majchrzak, 2022. "Advice in Crisis: Principles of Organizational and Entrepreneurial Resilience," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(4), pages 145-168, December.
    20. Julija N. Mell & Daan van Knippenberg & Wendy P. van Ginkel & Pursey P. M. A. R. Heugens, 2022. "From Boundary Spanning to Intergroup Knowledge Integration: The Role of Boundary Spanners’ Metaknowledge and Proactivity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(7), pages 1723-1755, November.

    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:ororsc:v:26:y:2015:i:5:p:1447-1465. 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.