Abstract
This study demonstrates and applies a social network methodology for studying the dynamics of hierarchies in organizations. Social network (blockmodel) analysis of verbal networks in four hospitals contrasted hierarchical and structurally equivalent partitions of the sociomatrices of frequent ties and perceptions of organizational culture. It was found that the verbal networks in these organizations follow a center periphery pattern rather than a hierarchical logic and that perceptions of culture vary more by verbal network than by formal hierarchy. The perceptions of culture of central groups in one organization are much like those of peripheral groups in another. In all four hospitals, structurally equivalent social networks are more important in predicting subcultures than are hierarchical groupings and hierarchy has a limited impact on the development of verbal networks. These findings suggest the value of an amoeba rather than a pyramid metaphor in interpreting the cultures and relational structures of organizations.
Highlights
This study demonstrates and applies a social network methodology for studying the dynamics of hierarchies in organizations
The results suggest that verbal network groupings better explained differences in perceptions of organizational culture than did hierarchical groupings, suggesting again the comparative marginality of formal hierarchy in the internal dynamics of the organizations studied
Assuming that partitioning our matrix by formal hierarchy does not yield the clearest possible representation of the overall network, it is desirable to consider a mechanical clustering of the matrix based not on external criteria like hierarchy, but on the internal logic of the network itself
Summary
Social network analysis attempts to draw a mathematical map of relations between actors and to identify patterns of interaction (Kilduff and Tsai, 2003; Nelson and Hsu, 2005; PerrySmith, 2006; Regans, 2003). The entry for Cell 1,1 in the table of raw counts is 6, indicating that the 6 top level managers (including the COO) recognize 6 frequent contacts among themselves. The entry for Cell 1,2 of the table of raw counts is 2, indicating that the 6 top level managers recognize 2 frequent contacts with the second level in the hierarchy. The entry for Cell 2,1 is 4, indicating that the 8 second level managers recognize 4 frequent contacts. It is interesting that the first and third layers share frequent contacts among themselves while the second hierarchical level entertains no internal contacts
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have