Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A tale of two cultures: Social networks and competitive advantage

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To study how firm networks function in different cultures, we employ meta-analysis methods to examine the impacts of tightness-looseness and individualist-collectivist cultures on the links between network centrality/structural holes and competitive advantage. Based on a sample from 74 studies encompassing 30,930 samples, we find that network centrality has a stronger positive impact on competitive advantage than structural holes. In addition, the findings indicate that the positive impacts of both network centrality and structural holes on competitive advantage are higher in loose cultures than in tight cultures. We also find that the positive impacts of both network centrality and structural holes on competitive advantage are higher in individualist cultures than in collectivist cultures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

*study included in the meta-analysis

  • *Aarstad, J., Ness, H., & Haugland, S. A. 2015. Network position and tourism firms’ co-branding practice. Journal of Business Research, 68(8): 1667–1677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., & Henle, C. A. 2003. The search for universals in cross-cultural organizational behavior. In J. Greenberg (Ed.). Organizational behavior: The state of the science, 2nd ed.: 373–411. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • *Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3): 425–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Alexy, O. T., Block, J. H., Sandner, P., & Ter Wal, A. L. 2012. Social capital of venture capitalists and start-up funding. Small Business Economics, 39(4): 835–851.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Andrevski, G., Brass, D. J., & Ferrier, W. J. 2016. Alliance portfolio configurations and competitive action frequency. Journal of Management, 42(4): 811–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Batjargal, B. 2010. The effects of network’s structural holes: Polycentric institutions, product portfolio, and new venture growth in China and Russia. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(2): 146–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Batjargal, B., Hitt, M., Tsui, A., Arregle, J. L., Webb, J., & Miller, T. 2013. Institutional polycentrism, entrepreneurs’ social networks and new venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4): 1024–1049.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Baum, J. A., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. 2000. Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 267–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Beckman, C. M., & Haunschild, P. R. 2002. Network learning: The effects of partners’ heterogeneity of experience on corporate acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1): 92–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Beckman, C. M., Haunschild, P. R., & Phillips, D. J. 2004. Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organization Science, 15(3): 259–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bell, G. G. 2005. Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3): 287–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijmolt, T. H., & Pieters, R. G. 2001. Meta-analysis in marketing when studies contain multiple measurements. Marketing Letters, 12(2): 157–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bizzi, L. 2013. The dark side of structural holes a multilevel investigation. Journal of Management, 39(6): 1554–1578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich, P. 1987. Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5): 1170–1182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P. 2005. Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27(1): 55–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. 2011. On network theory. Organization Science, 22(5): 1168–1181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. 1993. Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3): 441–470.Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H., & Tsai, W. 2004. Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 795–817.

  • Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camisón-Zornoza, C., Lapiedra-Alcamí, R., Segarra-Ciprés, M., & Boronat-Navarro, M. 2004. A meta-analysis of innovation and organizational size. Organization Studies, 25(3): 331–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Caner, T., Sun, J., & Prescott, J. E. 2014. When a firm’s centrality in R&D alliance network is (not) the answer for invention: The interaction of centrality, inward and outward knowledge transfer. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 33: 193–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Carnovale, S., & Yeniyurt, S. 2015. The role of ego network structure in facilitating ego network innovations. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(2): 22–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, M. A., Li, M., & Jiang, H. 2012. Social network research in organizational contexts: A systematic review of methodological issues and choices. Journal of Management, 38(4): 1328–1361.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Casanueva, C., Castro, I., & Galán, J. L. 2013. Informational networks and innovation in mature industrial clusters. Journal of Business Research, 66(5): 603–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Meindl, J. R. 1998. How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 285–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. C., Peng, M. W., & Saparito, P. A. 2002. Individualism, collectivism, and opportunism: A cultural perspective on transaction cost economics. Journal of Management, 28(4): 567–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chi, L., Ravichandran, T., & Andrevski, G. 2010. Information technology, network structure, and competitive action. Information Systems Research, 21(3): 543–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chiao, Y. C., Huang, C. J., & Hsu, S. M. 2015. Does multimarket contact lead to mutual forbearance? The influence of the coopetition network of maritime and port companies. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 7(5): 529–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua, R. Y. J., Roth, Y., & Lemoine, J. F. 2015. The impact of culture on creativity: How cultural tightness and cultural distance affect global innovation crowdsourcing work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2): 189–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. A. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1): 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Collet, F., & Philippe, D. 2014. From hot cakes to cold feet: A contingent perspective on the relationship between market uncertainty and status homophily in the formation of alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 51(3): 406–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H. M., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. 2009. The handbook of research synthesis an meta-analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Dong, J. Q., & Yang, C. H. 2015. Information technology and organizational learning in knowledge alliances and networks: Evidence from U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Information & Management, 52(1): 111–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. 1979. Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1: 215–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, R. J. 2014. Making the most of where you are: Geography, networks, and innovation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1): 193–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Galaskiewicz, J., Bielefeld, W., & Dowell, M. 2006. Networks and organizational growth: A study of community based nonprofits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3): 337–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. 2006. On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1225–1244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., Duan, L., Almaliach, A., Ang, S., Arnadottir, J., Aycan, Z., Boehnke, K., Boski, P., Cabecinhas, R., Chan, D., Chhokar, J., D’Amato, A., Ferrer, M., Fischlmayr, I. C., Fischer, R., Fülöp, M., Georgas, J., Kashima, E. S., Kashima, Y., Kim, K., Lempereur, A., Marquez, P., Othman, R., Overlaet, B., Panagiotopoulou, P., Peltzer, K., Perez-Florizno, L. R., Ponomarenko, L., Realo, A., Schei, V., Schmitt, M., Smith, P. B., Soomro, N., Szabo, E., Taveesin, N., Toyama, M., Van de Vliert, E., Vohra, N., Ward, C., & Yamaguchi, S. 2011. Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332: 1100–1104.

  • Gerhart, B. 2009. How much does national culture constrain organizational culture?. Management & Organization Review, 5(2): 241–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Cunha, P. V. 2009. A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of Management, 35(2): 393–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, D. E. 2004. Network structure and innovation ambiguity effects on diffusion in dynamic organizational fields. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6): 938–951.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., & van den Oord, A. 2008. Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37(10): 1717–1731.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Giuliani, E. 2013. Clusters, networks and firms’ product success: An empirical study. Management Decision, 51(6): 1135–1160.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gnyawali, D. R., He, J., & Madhavan, R. 2006. Impact of co-opetition on firm competitive behavior: An empirical examination. Journal of Management, 32(4): 507–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R. 2001. Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(3): 431–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Guan, J., & Liu, N. 2016. Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy. Research policy, 45(1): 97–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. 2000. Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 203–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Guler, I., & Guillen, M. F. 2010. Home country networks and foreign expansion: Evidence from the venture capital industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2): 390–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1): 82–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., van Essen, M., & van Oosterhout, J. 2009. Meta-analyzing ownership concentration and firm performance in asia: Towards a more fine-grained understanding. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(3): 481–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Howard, M. D., Withers, M. C., Carnes, C. M., & Hillman, A. J. 2016. Friends or strangers? It all depends on context: A replication and extension of Beckman, Haunschild, and Phillips (2004). Strategic Management Journal, 37(11): 2222–2234.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hughes-Morgan, M., & Yao, B. E. 2016. Rent appropriation in strategic alliances: A study of technical alliances in pharmaceutical industry. Long Range Planning, 49(2): 186–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 1990. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, H. 1993. Network centrality, power and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3): 471–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jensen, M. 2008. The use of relational discrimination to manage market entry: When do social status and structural holes work against you. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4): 723–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Karamanos, A. G. 2016. Effects of a firm’s and their partners’ alliance ego–network structure on its innovation output in an era of ferment. R&D Management, 46(S1): 261–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenis, P., & Knoke, D. 2002. How organizational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 275–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. 2004. Social networks and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kim, H. S., & Choi, S. Y. 2014. Corporate performance drivers in vertical downstream alliance portfolios: The Korean defense industry. Journal of Management & Organization, 20(02): 148–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. 2008. Ties that spatially bind? A relational account of the causes of spatial firm mobility. Regional Studies, 42(3): 385–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koka, B. R., & Prescott, J. E. 2002. Strategic alliances as social capital: A multidimensional view. Strategic Management Journal, 23(9): 795–816.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Koka, B. R., & Prescott, J. E. 2008. Designing alliance networks: The influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(6): 639–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lavie, D. 2007. Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in the US software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 28(12): 1187–1212.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lee, C. Y., Wang, M. C., & Huang, Y. C. 2015. The double-edged sword of technological diversity in R&D alliances: Network position and learning speed as moderators. European Management Journal, 33(6): 450–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. P. 2007. Social tie, social capital, and social behavior: Toward an integrative model of informal exchange. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(2): 227–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lin, J., Peng, M. W., Yang, H. B., & Sun, S. 2009. How do networks and learning drive M&As? An institutional comparison between China and the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 30(10): 1113–1132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z., Yang, H. B., & Demirkan, I. 2007. The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science, 53(10): 1645–1658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. 2001. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, R., Huang, Y. C., & Shenkar, O. 2011. Social networks and opportunity recognition: A cultural comparison between Taiwan and the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 32(11): 1183–1205.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mani, S., & Luo, X. 2015. Product alliances, alliance networks, and shareholder value: Evidence from the biopharmaceutical industry. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(1): 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Markóczy, L., Sun, S. L., Peng, M. W., Shi, W., & Ren, B. 2013. Social network contingency, symbolic management, and boundary stretching. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11): 1367–1387.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Martin, G., Gözübüyük, R., & Becerra, M. 2015. Interlocks and firm performance: The role of uncertainty in the directorate interlock-performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 36(2): 235–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mazzola, E., Perrone, G., & Kamuriwo, D. S. 2016. The interaction between inter-firm and interlocking directorate networks on firm’s new product development outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 69(2): 672–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • *McEvily, B., Jaffee, J., & Tortoriello, M. 2012. Not all bridging ties are equal: Network imprinting and firm growth in the Nashville legal industry, 1933–1978. Organization Science, 23(2): 547–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Milanov, H., & Fernhaber, S. A. 2009. The impact of early imprinting on the evolution of new venture networks. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(1): 46–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Min, J., & Mitsuhashi, H. 2012. Dynamics of unclosed triangles in alliance networks: Disappearance of brokerage positions and performance consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 49(6): 1078–1108.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Operti, E., & Carnabuci, G. 2014. Public knowledge, private gain the effect of spillover networks on firms’ innovative performance. Journal of Management, 40(4): 1042–1074.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. 2004. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1): 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozeren, E., Ozmen, O. N. T., & Appolloni, A. 2013. The relationship between cultural tightness-looseness and organizational innovativeness: A comparative research into the Turkish and Italian marble industries. Transition Studies Review, 19(4): 475–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ozmel, U., Reuer, J. J., & Gulati, R. 2013. Signals across multiple networks: How venture capital and alliance networks affect interorganizational collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3): 852–866.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Padula, G. 2008. Enhancing the innovation performance of firms by balancing cohesiveness and bridging ties. Long Range Planning, 41(4): 395–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Paruchuri, S. 2010. Intraorganizational networks, interorganizational networks, and the impact of central inventors: A longitudinal study of pharmaceutical firms. Organization Science, 21(1): 63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., Li, Y., & Tian, L. 2016. Tian-ren-he-yi strategy: An Eastern perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(3): 695–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. 2012. Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4): 1115–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, C. C. 2010. A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4): 890–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Polidoro, F., Ahuja, G., & Mitchell, W. 2011. When the social structure overshadows competitive incentives: The effects of network embeddedness on joint venture dissolution. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1): 203–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ranganathan, R., & Rosenkopf, L. 2014. Do ties really bind? The effect of knowledge and commercialization networks on opposition to standards. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2): 515–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L., & Schleicher, T. 2008. Below the tip of the iceberg: The co-evolution of formal and informal interorganizational relations in the wireless telecommunications industry. Managerial & Decision Economics, 29(5): 425–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. 1991. Meta-analytic procedures for social research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rowley, T. J., & Baum, J. A. 2004. Sophistication of interfirm network strategies in the Canadian investment banking industry. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 20(1): 103–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rowley, T. J., Greve, H. R., Rao, H., Baum, J. A., & Shipilov, A. V. 2005. Time to break up: Social and instrumental antecedents of firm exits from exchange cliques. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3): 499–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. 2007. Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53(7): 1113–1126.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shi, W., Sun, S. L., & Peng, M. W. 2012. Sub-national institutional contingencies, network positions, and IJV partner selection. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7): 1221–1245.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shi, W. S., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B. C., & Peng, M. W. 2014. Domestic alliance network to attract foreign partners: Evidence from international joint ventures in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(3): 338–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shipilov, A. V. 2006. Network strategies and performance of Canadian investment banks. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3): 590–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shipilov, A. V. 2009. Firm scope experience, historic multimarket contact with partners, centrality, and the relationship between structural holes and performance. Organization Science, 20(1): 85–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shipilov, A. V., Greve, H. R., & Rowley, T. J. 2010. When do interlocks matter? Institutional logics and the diffusion of multiple corporate governance practices. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4): 846–864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipilov, A. V., & Li, S. X. 2008. Can you have your cake and eat it too? Structural holes’ influence on status accumulation and market performance in collaborative networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(1): 73–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. 1996. National culture and the values of organizational employees a dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(2): 231–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Soda, G. 2011. The management of firms’ alliance network positioning: Implications for innovation. European Management Journal, 29(5): 377–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Soh, P. H. 2003. The role of networking alliances in information acquisition and its implications for new product performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(6): 727–744.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Soh, P. H. 2010. Network patterns and competitive advantage before the emergence of a dominant design. Strategic Management Journal, 31(4): 438–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Soh, P. H., Mahmood, I. P., & Mitchell, W. 2004. Dynamic inducements in R&D investment: Market signals and network locations. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6): 907–917.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Stam, W. 2010. Industry event participation and network brokerage among entrepreneurial ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 47(4): 625–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Stam, W., & Elfring, T. 2008. Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The moderating role of intra-and extraindustry social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1): 97–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterne, J. 2009. Meta-analysis in Stata: An updated collection from the Stata journal. College Station: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, W. B., & Greenberg, D. 2000. Agency and social networks: Strategies of action in a social structure of position, opposition, and opportunity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4): 651–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sullivan, B. N., Haunschild, P., & Page, K. 2007. Organizations non gratae? The impact of unethical corporate acts on interorganizational networks. Organization Science, 18(1): 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sullivan, B. N., Tang, Y., & Marquis, C. 2014. Persistently learning: How small-world network imprints affect subsequent firm learning. Strategic Organization, 12(3): 180–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sun, S. L., & Lee, R. P. 2013. Enhancing innovation through international joint venture portfolios: From the emerging firm perspective. Journal of International Marketing, 21(3): 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Swaminathan, V., & Moorman, C. 2009. Marketing alliances, firm networks, and firm value creation. Journal of Marketing, 73(5): 52–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sytch, M., & Tatarynowicz, A. 2014. Exploring the locus of invention: The dynamics of network communities and firms’ invention productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1): 249–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J., Zhang, H., & Wang, L. 2015. Network closure or structural hole? The conditioning effects of network-level social capital on innovation performance. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 39(5): 1189–1212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tian, L., Li, Y., Li, P. P., & Bodla, A. A. 2015. Leader–member skill distance, team cooperation, and team performance: A cross-culture study in a context of sport teams. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 49: 183–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. 2004. The many dimensions of culture. Academy of Management Executive, 18: 88–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. 1988. Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2): 323–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Essen, M., Heugens, P. P., Otten, J., & van Oosterhout, J. H. 2012. An institution-based view of executive compensation: A multilevel meta-analytic test. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(4): 396–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., & Noorderhaven, N. 2002. External technology sourcing through alliances or acquisitions: An analysis of the application-specific integrated circuits industry. Organization Science, 13(6): 714–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Vasudeva, G., Zaheer, A., & Hernandez, E. 2013. The embeddedness of networks: Institutions, structural holes, and innovativeness in the fuel cell industry. Organization Science, 24(3): 645–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., Zhao, J., Li, Y., & Li, C. 2015. Network centrality, organizational innovation, and performance: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 32(3): 146–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. C., & Chen, M. H. 2016. The more, the better? The impact of closure collaboration network and network structures on technology-based new ventures’ performance. R&D Management, 46(S1): 174–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Whittington, K. B., Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. 2009. Networks, propinquity, and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1): 90–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wincent, J., Anokhin, S., Örtqvist, J., & Autio, E. 2010. Quality meets structure: Generalized reciprocity and firm-level advantage in strategic networks. Journal of Management Studies, 47(4): 597–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wuyts, S., & Dutta, S. 2008. Licensing exchange: Insights from the biopharmaceutical industry. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(4): 273–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, Z., & Tsui, A. S. 2007. When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 11–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, M., Zhao, H., Zhu, N., Liu, C., & Jiang, T. 2016. Study on the relationship between network position and organizational performance based on meta-analysis. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 28(15): 4082–4092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H., Sun, S. L., Lin, Z., & Peng, M. W. 2011. Behind M&as in China and the United States: Networks, learning, and institutions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(2): 239–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H. B., Lin, Z. A., & Lin, Y. 2010. A multilevel framework of firm boundaries: Firm characteristics, dyadic differences, and network attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3): 237–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Yin, X., Wu, J., & Tsai, W. 2012. When unconnected others connect: Does degree of brokerage persist after the formation of a multipartner alliance. Organization Science, 23(6): 1682–1699.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Yu, J., Gilbert, B. A., & Oviatt, B. M. 2011. Effects of alliances, time, and network cohesion on the initiation of foreign sales by new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 32(4): 424–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. G. 2005. Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(9): 809–825.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (71421002).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Management, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, China

    Haifeng Wang

  2. Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

    Longwei Tian

  3. School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

    Yuan Li

Authors
  1. Haifeng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Longwei Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuan Li.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, H., Tian, L. & Li, Y. A tale of two cultures: Social networks and competitive advantage. Asia Pac J Manag 36, 321–347 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9603-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9603-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation