Egocentric, sociocentric, or dyadic?: Identifying the appropriate level of analysis in the study of organizational networks

This paper examines the use of individual, dyadic and system-level analyses in the study of relational data in organizational networks. We argue that dyadic analyses are particularly appropriate when the dependent variable is quantitative and/or involves multiple behaviors. We show that system-level analyses, by aggregating potentially significant information, provide a less grounded account of the relations across networks than do dyadic analyses. Using examples from a study of corporate political behavior, we contrast dyadic analyses with those at both the individual and system-levels. Variables measured in raw dyadic form consistently perform better in accounting for similarity of corporate political behavior than do variables measured by taking system-level properties into account. Our findings suggest that although individual and system-level analyses are useful in a number of situations, dyadic analyses are a flexible means to examine the effects of multiple networks at multiple levels.

[1]  Roger Th. A. J. Leenders,et al.  Modeling social influence through network autocorrelation: constructing the weight matrix , 2002, Soc. Networks.

[2]  M. Mizruchi.  Cohesion, equivalence, and similarity of behavior: a theoretical and empirical assessment , 1993 .

[3]  Christopher Marquis,et al.  The C Conditional N Nature o of E Embeddedness: A S Study o of B Borrowing b by L Large U U.S. F Firms, 1973-1994 , 2006 .

[4]  Christopher Winship.  Thoughts about roles and relations: An old document revisited , 1988 .

[5]  Christopher Marquis,et al.  The Pressure of the Past: Network Imprinting in Intercorporate Communities , 2003 .

[6]  M. Mizruchi,et al.  The American Corporate Network 1904-1974 , 1982 .

[7]  P. Doreian.  Estimating Linear Models with Spatially Distributed Data , 1981 .

[8]  Dan Clawson,et al.  Interlocks, PACs, and Corporate Conservatism , 1989, American Journal of Sociology.

[9]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  The Influence of Corporate Power, Social Status, and Market Position on Corporate Interlocks in a Regional Network , 1985 .

[10]  Mark S. Mizruchi,et al.  Centrality and power revisited: actor success in group decision making , 1998 .

[11]  R. Gulati.  Social Structure and Alliance Formation Patterns: A Longitudinal Analysis , 1995 .

[12]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  Syndication Networks and the Spatial Distribution of Venture Capital Investments1 , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[13]  David Knoke,et al.  The Structure of Corporate Political Action: Interfirm Relations and Their Consequences.By Mark S. Mizruchi. Harvard University Press, 1992. 310 pp. $37.50 , 1994 .

[14]  L. Hubert.  Assignment methods in combinatorial data analysis , 1986 .

[15]  Noah E. Friedkin,et al.  Network Studies of Social Influence , 1993 .

[16]  R. Gulati,et al.  Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From?1 , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[17]  Pamela R. Haunschild.  Interorganizational imitation: The impact of interlocks on corporate acquisition activity , 1993 .

[18]  Mark S. Mizruchi,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of Borrowing by Large American Corporations , 1994 .

[19]  Jitendra V. Singh,et al.  The Ties That Bind: Organizational and Class Bases of Stability in a Corporate Interlock Network , 1986 .

[20]  R. Burt,et al.  Corporate Profits And Cooptation , 1983 .

[21]  H. White,et al.  “Structural Equivalence of Individuals in Social Networks” , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[22]  J. Galaskiewicz.  Social Organization in an Urban Grants Economy , 1985 .

[23]  David Krackhardt,et al.  PREDICTING WITH NETWORKS: NONPARAMETRIC MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF DYADIC DATA * , 1988 .

[24]  Mark S. Mizruchi,et al.  The Conditional Nature of Embeddedness: A Study of Borrowing by Large U.S. Firms, 1973–1994 , 2006 .

[25]  V. Burris,et al.  The Political Partisanship of American Business: A Study of Corporate Political Action Committees , 1987 .

[26]  Lisa A. Keister,et al.  Exchange Structures in Transition: Lending and Trade Relations in Chinese Business Groups , 2001, American Sociological Review.

[27]  P. Bonacich.  TECHNIQUE FOR ANALYZING OVERLAPPING MEMBERSHIPS , 1972 .

[28]  Joel Podolny.  Market Uncertainty and the Social Character of Economic Exchange , 1994 .

[29]  G. Davis.  Agents without Principles? The Spread of the Poison Pill through the Intercorporate Network , 1991 .