The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Strength of Strong Ties : The Importance of Philos in Organizations
Abstract
In 1973, Mark Granovetter proposed that weak ties are often more important than strong ties in understanding certain network-based phenomena. His argument rests on the assumption that strong ties tend to bond similar people to each other and these similar people tend to cluster together such that they are all mutually connected. The information obtained through such a network tie is more likely to be redundant, and the network is therefore not a channel for innovation. By contrast, a weak tie more often constitutes a “local bridge” to parts of the social system that are otherwise disconnected, and therefore a weak tie is likely to provide new information from disparate parts of the system. Thus, this theory argues, tie strength is curvilinear with a host of dependent variables: no tie (or an extremely weak tie) is of little consequence; a weak tie provides maximum impact, and a strong tie provides diminished impact. Subsequent research has generally supported Granovetter’s theory (Granovetter 1982), but two issues have been neglected in the research stream. First, there is considerable ambiguity as to what constitutes a strong tie and what constitutes a weak tie. Granovetter laid out four identifying properties of a strong tie: “The strength of a tie is a (probably linear) combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie” (1973:1361). This makes tie strength a linear function of four quasi-independent indicators. At what point is a tie to be considered weak? This is not simply a question for the methodologically curious. It is an important part of the theory itself, since the theory makes a curvilinear prediction. If we happen to be on the very left side of the continuum of tie strength, then increasing the strength of the tie (going from no tie to weak tie) will increase the relevant information access. On the other hand, at some point making the ties stronger will theoretically decrease their impact. How do we know where we are on this theoretical curve? Do all four indicators count equally toward tie strength? In practice, tie strength has been measured many different ways.
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
Cited by
Predicting tie strength with social media
Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2009) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1518701.1518736 · Cited by 1,382
Social networks and Internet connectivity effects
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/13691180500146185 · Cited by 1,315
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
McFadyen, M. A., & Cannella, A. A. (2004) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/20159615 · Cited by 1,039
The Genesis and Dynamics of Organizational Networks
Ahuja, G., Soda, G., & Zaheer, A. (2012) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0695 · Cited by 874
Metadata
- Authors
- Krackhardt, D.
- Venue
- Networks in the Knowledge Economy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2003-08-14
- OpenAlex
- W3102050987
- Cited by
- 1,354
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 297.10
- Type
- book chapter
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Strength of Strong Ties : The Importance of Philos in Organizations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oso/9780195159509.003.0008
- The paper
- Krackhardt, D. (2003). The Strength of Strong Ties : The Importance of Philos in Organizations. Networks in the Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195159509.003.0008
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.