Cited by 1,511Social Capital and NetworksInnovation and Knowledge ManagementKnowledge Management and Sharing

Trapped in Your Own Net? Network Cohesion, Structural Holes, and the Adaptation of Social Capital

Gargiulo, Martin, Benassi, Mario·2000·Organization Science

Abstract

This paper explores the tension between two opposite views on how networks create social capital. Network closure (Coleman 1988) stresses the role of cohesive ties in fostering a normative environment that facilitates cooperation. Structural hole theory (Burt 1992) sees cohesive ties as a source of rigidity that hinders the coordination of complex organizational tasks. The two theories lead to opposite predictions on how the structure of an actor's network may affect his ability to adapt that network to a significant change in task environment. Using data from a newly created special unit within the Italian subsidiary of a multinational computer manufacturer, we show that managers with cohesive communication networks were less likely to adapt these networks to the change in coordination requirements prompted by their new assignments, which in turn jeopardized their role as facilitators of horizontal cooperation within a newly created business unit structure. We conclude with a discussion of the trade-off between the safety of cooperation within cohesive networks and the flexibility provided by networks rich in structural holes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/orsc.11.2.183.12514

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior research has documented that cohesive networks lead to less adaptation and create a dependence-oriented culture.

    “It has also been found that cohesive networks lead to less adaptation (Gargiulo and Benassi 2000) and create a dependence-oriented culture (Eklinder-Frick et al. 2011).”

    From The Negative Effects of Social Capital in Organizations: A Review and Extension (2017) · cites this paper as Gargiulo and Benassi 2000

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 58 · Cited by 1,511

Authors
Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M.
Affiliations
  • INSEAD (FR)
  • University of Trento (IT)
Venue
Organization Science
Published
2000-04
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
183-196
ISSN
  • 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5455
OpenAlex
W2099048485
Cited by
1,511
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 99 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 133 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 87 · 2017: 71 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 65 · 2014: 63 · 2013: 90 · 2012: 73
FWCI
39.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Organization Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Capital and Networks
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
Keywords
network cohesion, structural holes, social capital, network closure, organizational adaptation, network rigidity, horizontal cooperation, communication networks, organizational change, foreign subsidiaries, computer manufacturing

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