The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Kindness of Strangers: The Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice
Abstract
People use weak ties—relationships with acquaintances or strangers—to seek help unavailable from friends or colleagues. Yet in the absence of personal relationships or the expectation of direct reciprocity, help from weak ties might not be forthcoming or could be of low quality. We examined the practice of distant employees (strangers) exchanging technical advice through a large organizational computer network. A survey of advice seekers and those who replied was conducted to test hypotheses about the viability and usefulness of such electronic weak tie exchanges. Theories of organizational motivation suggest that positive regard for the larger organization can substitute for direct incentives or personal relationships in motivating people to help others. Theories of weak ties suggest that the usefulness of this help may depend on the number of ties, the diversity of ties, or the resources of help providers. We hypothesized that, in an organizational context, the firm-specific resources and organizational motivation of people who provide advice will predict the usefulness of advice. We investigated these theories in a study of employees of a global computer manufacturer. We collected survey and observational data on the relationships between information seekers and information providers; the number, diversity, resources, and motivations of information providers, and subjective ratings of the usefulness of the advice (from both parties in the exchange) and whether or not the advice solved information seekers' problems. We found that information providers gave useful advice and solved the problems of information seekers, despite their lack of a personal connection with the seekers. The data support the main hypotheses and provide some support for resource and diversity explanations of weak tie influence. We discuss how this organization's culture sustained useful intormation exchange through weak ties.
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
Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 · Cited by 9,868
Cited by
Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.53.9.1017 · Cited by 4,793
Self-citationSocial capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis.
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008) · Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002 · Cited by 1,919
Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework
Ipe, M. (2003) · Human Resource Development Review · doi:10.1177/1534484303257985 · Cited by 1,608
Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities
Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/s0963-8687(02)00021-5 · Cited by 1,423
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 1996-04
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 119-135
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2075894438
- Cited by
- 1,440
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 63.04
- 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.