The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Networks as the Pipes and Prisms of the Market
Abstract
This article draws an analytical distinction between two types of market uncertainty: egocentric, which refers to a focal actor’s uncertainty regarding the best way to convert a set of inputs to an output desired by a potential exchange partner, and altercentric, which denotes the uncertainty confronted by a focal actor’s exchange partners regarding the quality of the output that the focal actor brings to the market. Given this distinction, the article considers how the value of “structural holes” and market status vary with these two types of uncertainty. The article proposes that the value of structural holes increases with egocentric uncertainty, but not with altercentric uncertainty. In contrast, the value of status increases with altercentric uncertainty, but declines with egocentric uncertainty. Thus actors with networks rich in structural holes should sort into markets or market segments that are high in egocentric uncertainty; high‐status actors should sort into markets that are low in egocentric uncertainty. Support for this claim is found in an examination of the venture capital markets.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Burt, R. S. (1992) · doi:10.4159/9780674029095 · Cited by 9,093
Cited by
Structural Holes and Good Ideas
Burt, R. S. (2004) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/421787 · Cited by 5,642
An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets
MacKenzie, D. (2006) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262134606.001.0001 · Cited by 1,766
Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity
Gilbert, C. G. (2005) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2005.18803920 · Cited by 1,375
Stam, W., & Elfring, T. (2008) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2008.30744031 · Cited by 1,218
From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V. (2017) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0462 · Cited by 1,121
Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps
McIntyre, D. P., & Srinivasan, A. (2017) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2596 · Cited by 1,109
Fligstein, N., & Dauter, L. (2007) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131736 · Cited by 601
Carnabuci, G., & Operti, E. (2013) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2084 · Cited by 596
Networks, Propinquity, and Innovation in Knowledge-intensive Industries
Whittington, K. B., Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2009) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.90 · Cited by 576
Ibarra, H., Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0129 · Cited by 518
The Social Network Ties of Group Leaders: Implications for Group Performance and Leader Reputation
Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., & Robertson, B. (2006) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0158 · Cited by 498
Platforms without borders? The international strategies of digital platform firms
Stallkamp, M., & Schotter, A. P. J. (2021) · Global Strategy Journal · doi:10.1002/gsj.1336 · Cited by 420
Entrepreneurship in digital platforms: Anetwork‐centric view
Srinivasan, A., & Venkatraman, N. (2018) · Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal · doi:10.1002/sej.1272 · Cited by 331
The paradox of new venture legitimation within an entrepreneurial ecosystem
Kuratko, D. F., Fisher, G., Bloodgood, J. M., & Hornsby, J. S. (2017) · Small Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9870-x · Cited by 244
Tracking the numbers: Across accounting and finance, organizations and markets
Vollmer, H., Mennicken, A., & Preda, A. (2009) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2008.06.007 · Cited by 174
Personality Change: Implications for Organizational Behavior
Tasselli, S., Kilduff, M., & Landis, B. (2018) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0008 · Cited by 114
Levine, J. R. (2016) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122416670655 · Cited by 95
Trust and partner selection in social networks: An experimentally grounded model
Bravo, G., Squazzoni, F., & Boero, R. (2012) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2012.03.001 · Cited by 85
“Podolny (2001) suggested that investment bankers that operated in markets characterized by a higher degree of uncertainty were likely to interact with colleagues they have interacted with in the past.”
BackgroundRavindran, K., Susarla, A., Mani, D., & Gurbaxani, V. (2015) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2015.0572 · Cited by 68
Maruping, L. M., Daniel, S. L., & Cataldo, M. (2019) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2019/13928 · Cited by 64
Toward an Understanding of Online Lending Intentions: Evidence from a Survey in China
Chen, D., Lou, H., & Van Slyke, C. (2015) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.03617 · Cited by 54
Schneiberg, M., & Berk, G. (2010) · Research in the Sociology of Organizations · doi:10.1108/s0733-558x(2010)0000031011 · Cited by 46
When does brokerage matter? Citation impact of research teams in an emerging academic field
Collet, F., Robertson, D. A., & Lup, D. (2014) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127014530124 · Cited by 32
The Third Man: hierarchy formation in Wikipedia
Lerner, J., & Lomi, A. (2017) · Applied Network Science · doi:10.1007/s41109-017-0043-2 · Cited by 27
McDonnell, M.-H., & King, B. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2373974 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Podolny, J. M.
- Venue
- American Journal of Sociology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2001-07
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 33-60
- ISSN
- 0002-9602 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5390
- OpenAlex
- W1507950475
- Cited by
- 1,635
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 73.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
