Contingent bridge supervision: New evidence and cautions for network theory

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY Social Networks Pub Date : 2024-04-09 DOI:10.1016/j.socnet.2024.03.003
Diego Jannace , Ronald S. Burt
{"title":"Contingent bridge supervision: New evidence and cautions for network theory","authors":"Diego Jannace ,&nbsp;Ronald S. Burt","doi":"10.1016/j.socnet.2024.03.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Bridge supervision occurs when manager and boss operate in separate social worlds, a condition increasingly likely as managers work more often from locations outside the office. The concept of bridge supervision was proposed using evidence from managers balkanized into product and geographic silos. Silos facilitate managers segregated from the boss. We here try to test support for bridge supervision hypotheses in a cohesive population of HR managers, where bridge supervision would be more difficult. Cohesion does limit the evidence of bridge supervision, but we nevertheless confirm the phenomenon's central hypotheses: bridge supervision is associated with role segregation between manager and boss, and manager performance is unaffected. More, by explicitly considering a broader set of network indicators of bridge supervision, we replicate Burt and Wang’s (2022) focus on just two: mutual contacts, and manager-exclusive density. We close with key features of bridge supervision now replicated, cautions on how easily the phenomenon can be undetected in a cohesive study population, and implications for future research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48353,"journal":{"name":"Social Networks","volume":"78 ","pages":"Pages 253-264"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378873324000182/pdfft?md5=0f3eab27d3c9c4611b1a074b5c0e2115&pid=1-s2.0-S0378873324000182-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Networks","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378873324000182","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Bridge supervision occurs when manager and boss operate in separate social worlds, a condition increasingly likely as managers work more often from locations outside the office. The concept of bridge supervision was proposed using evidence from managers balkanized into product and geographic silos. Silos facilitate managers segregated from the boss. We here try to test support for bridge supervision hypotheses in a cohesive population of HR managers, where bridge supervision would be more difficult. Cohesion does limit the evidence of bridge supervision, but we nevertheless confirm the phenomenon's central hypotheses: bridge supervision is associated with role segregation between manager and boss, and manager performance is unaffected. More, by explicitly considering a broader set of network indicators of bridge supervision, we replicate Burt and Wang’s (2022) focus on just two: mutual contacts, and manager-exclusive density. We close with key features of bridge supervision now replicated, cautions on how easily the phenomenon can be undetected in a cohesive study population, and implications for future research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
特遣队桥梁监督:网络理论的新证据和警示
当管理者和上司在不同的社会世界中工作时,就会出现 "桥梁监督",随着管理者越来越多地在办公室以外的地方工作,这种情况也越来越常见。桥梁式监督的概念是根据被分割成产品和地域筒仓的经理们的证据提出的。筒仓有利于管理人员与老板隔离。在此,我们试图在人力资源经理的内聚群体中检验对桥梁监督假设的支持,因为在这种群体中,桥梁监督会更加困难。凝聚力确实限制了桥梁监督的证据,但我们还是证实了这一现象的核心假设:桥梁监督与经理和老板之间的角色隔离有关,而经理的绩效则不受影响。此外,通过明确考虑更广泛的桥梁监督网络指标,我们复制了 Burt 和 Wang(2022 年)的研究,他们只关注了两个指标:相互联系和管理者排他性密度。最后,我们总结了现在得到复制的桥梁监督的主要特征,提醒大家注意在一个有凝聚力的研究群体中,这种现象很容易不被发现,以及对未来研究的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Networks
Social Networks Multiple-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
12.90%
发文量
118
期刊介绍: Social Networks is an interdisciplinary and international quarterly. It provides a common forum for representatives of anthropology, sociology, history, social psychology, political science, human geography, biology, economics, communications science and other disciplines who share an interest in the study of the empirical structure of social relations and associations that may be expressed in network form. It publishes both theoretical and substantive papers. Critical reviews of major theoretical or methodological approaches using the notion of networks in the analysis of social behaviour are also included, as are reviews of recent books dealing with social networks and social structure.
期刊最新文献
Why distinctiveness centrality is distinctive Editorial Board How many friends do youth nominate? A meta-analysis of gender, age, and geographic differences in average outdegree centrality A stopping rule for randomly sampling bipartite networks with fixed degree sequences Multilevel integrated healthcare: The evaluation of Project ECHO® networks to integrate children’s healthcare in Australia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1