The Impact of Network Centralization on Relational Capital
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26418/jebik.v8i1.31154Abstract
With an increasing degree of connections among firms forming network of economic activities, it is timely to assess the potential of these upon embedded firms. This article presents empirical evidence to that end. It distinguishes between decentralized and centralized network structure that illustrate the difficulties encountered in managing an inter-firm network structure. Although considerable studies has been performed in network issues affecting firms performance, very few research analyse the complicating attributes of a centralized network structure on its effects on firms performance. Thus this article described different attributes of the centralized network and its effects on firms"™ relational capital outcomes. Using social network analysis methodology this study found that certain structural position occupied by firms in network impacts on its relational capital outcome. This study is significant as it"™s contributed to prudent management of resources in managing complex network structure. Future research is also discussed.References
Barile, S., & Saviano, M. (2018). Complexity and Sustainability in Management: Insights from a Systems Perspective. Social Dynamics in a Systems Perspective. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61967-5_3
Birkinshaw, J. (2015). Are You Managing Complexity? London Business School Review.
Brailly, J., Favre, G., Chatellet, J., & Lazega, E. (2016). Embeddedness as a Multilevel Problem: A Case Study in Economic Sociology. Social Networks, 44, 319–333. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2015.03.005
Burt, R. S. (2017). Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital. In Social Capital (p. 26). New York: Routledge.
Grösser, S. N. (2017). Complexity Management and System Dynamics Thinking. In Dynamics of Long-Life Assets. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45438-2
Kang, H., Min, J., & Lee, J. K. (2016). The Effects of Uncertainties on Network Embeddedness and the Mediating Effect of Information Sharing. Journal of Marketing Thought, 2(4), 1–15.
Kim, D.-Y. (2014). Understanding Supplier Structural Embeddedness: A Social Network Perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 219–231. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.005
Kim, Y., & Choi, T. Y. (2015). Deep, Sticky, Transient, and Gracious: An Expanded Buyer–Supplier Relationship Typology. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(3), 61–86. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12081
Leleur, S. (2017). The Meaning of System: Towards a Complexity Orientation in Systems Thinking. In Decision Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 67–82). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1837-2.ch005
Lina, X., & King, C. (2018). Too Much of a Good Thing? Examining How Proactive Personality Affects Employee Brand Performance Under Formal and Informal Organizational Support. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 68, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.09.007
Liu, X., Huang, Q., Dou, J., & Zhao, X. (2017). The Impact of Informal Social Interaction on Innovation Capability in the Context of Buyer-Supplier Dyads. Journal of Business Research, 78, 314–322. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.12.027
Martins, G. S., Rossoni, L., Duarte, A. L. C. M., & Martins, R. S. (2017). Supply Chain Relationships: Exploring the Effects of both Relational and Structural Embeddedness on Operational Performance. International Journal of Procurement Management, 10(5), 639–664. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpm.2017.10006799
Meyer, M. L., Davachi, L., Ochsner, K. N., & Lieberman, M. D. (2018). Evidence That Default Network Connectivity During Rest Consolidates Social Information. Cerebral Cortex, 29(5), 1910–1920. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy071
Morganson, V. J., Major, D. A., Streets, V. N., Litano, M. L., & Myers, D. P. (2015). Using Embeddedness Theory to Understand and Promote Persistence in STEM Majors. The Career Development Quarterly, 63(4), 348–362. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12033
Osman, L. H. (2015). A Social Network Model of Supply Chain Management in Formal and Informal Inter-Firm Engagement.
Logforum, 11(4), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2015.4.5
Osman, L. H. (2017). True Nature of Supply Network Communication Structure. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.21632/irjbs.9.1.1-14
Peltokorpi, V., Allen, D. G., & Froese, F. (2014). Organizational Embeddedness, Turnover Intentions, and Voluntary Turnover: The Moderating Effects of Employee Demographic Characteristics and Value Orientations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 292–312. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1981
Sachdev, H., & Merz, R. (2017). Managing Material and Logistics Embeddedness: Material Buyers’ Perspective. I-Manager’s Journal on Management, 11(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26634/jmgt.11.4.13448
Senge, P. M. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. Crown Business.
Villena, V. H., & Cheng, L. (2016). The Benefits and Downsides of Common Supply Chain Partners. In Academy of Management Proceedings. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.10673abstract
Zhou, K. Z., Zhang, Q., Sheng, S., Xie, E., & Bao, Y. (2014). Are Relational Ties Always Good for Knowledge Acquisition? Buyer–Supplier Exchanges in China. Journal of Operations Management, 32(3), 88–98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.01.001
