Trapped in Your Own Net? Network Cohesion, Structural Holes, and the Adaptation of Social Capital
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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