CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 129Innovation and Knowledge ManagementManagement and Organizational StudiesTeam Dynamics and Performance

Network Position and Cognition in a Computer Software Firm

Walker, Gordon·1985·Administrative Science Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/2392814
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Gordon Walker The present study examined the relationship between differences in cognition among the members of a software firm and the position a member occupied in the network of task relationships in the organization. Cognition was measured through judgments about means-ends associations relevant to software product success. The network was analyzed as a blockmodel, and positions in the network were defined as blocks of structurally equivalent individuals. Network position was found to be a stronger and more stable predictor of differences in cognition than the type of function an individual had and the type of product worked on. Both tenure in the industry and tenure in the firm also were found to have strong and stable effects. The generalizability of the findings is discussed in terms of the type of cognition studied and the firm's size, technology, and level of market uncertainty.*

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2392814

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Such polarization leads to pressure to conform to the opinions of prototypical members of the group or network.

    “We infer that such polarization will lead to pressure to conform to the opinions of prototypical members of the group or network, an assertion supported by the finding that less powerful individuals in organizations are likely to feel pressure to accept the perspectives and viewpoints of individuals who are more powerful (Walker 1985).”

    From The Negative Effects of Social Capital in Organizations: A Review and Extension (2017) · cites this paper as Walker 1985

  • Centrally located network members can influence unduly the perceptions of wider network members, which in extremis can lead to unanimity of the sort characteristic of groupthink.

    “As observed earlier, centrally located network members, by virtue of closer proximity and greater power, are able to influence unduly the perceptions of wider network members, which in extremis can lead to unanimity of the sort characteristic of groupthink (cf.Ibarra and Andrews 1993;Walker 1985).”

    From The Negative Effects of Social Capital in Organizations: A Review and Extension (2017) · cites this paper as Walker 1985

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Walker, G.
Corresponding author
Walker, Gordon
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1985-03
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
103
ISSN
0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/2392814
OpenAlex
W2070179694
Cited by
129
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
16.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Administrative Science Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
network position, organizational cognition, software companies, task relationships, structural equivalence, job tenure, market uncertainty, organizational structure

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