Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Overlapping Connections Between Groups Interact with Value Differences in Explaining Creativity?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Society as an Interaction Space

Part of the book series: Translational Systems Sciences ((TSS,volume 22))

Abstract

We build on recent developments in network theory and the sociology of valuation, and we propose that the overlapping connections that groups have with each other (i.e., structural folds) and differences in within-group values are substitutes for explaining creativity (coming up with new ideas and practices). Thus, only groups that lack overlapping connections with other groups stand to benefit from within-group value differences. In order to test this proposition, we developed a scale to measure differences in values in organizational cliques. We constructed 280 cliques of 104 employees at a professional service firm on the basis of their advice relations and tested whether group overlaps and diverging values were positively associated with a group’s creativity and their joint effect. As expected, group overlaps only have a positive effect on creativity when values do not diverge. Furthermore, divergence of values contributes to creativity only when overlapping connections between groups are lacking. These findings are explained by presenting a compensatory theory of the function of overlapping group memberships and differences in values. The findings contribute both to the research on group processes and creativity in network theory as well as the effects of values in social sciences.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We also used the CFinder software to analyze our data with the clique percolation method. With k value 3, CFinder identified only two subgroups; with k values of both 4 and 5, there were 10 subgroups. With so few subgroups, no statistically significant differences can be found.

  2. 2.

    When the N of the network is only 147, 280 subgroups may sound like a high figure. However, this figure is not that high considering that nodes are members of 1.9 cliques on average.

  3. 3.

    Stark (2009) has explored the connection between divergence of values and structural folding in the methodological context of ethnographic research. A methodological focus on ethnographic research is logical if one wants to underscore (as Stark does) that valuation always takes place in particular situations. However, ethnographic research is better suited to the formulation of new theories rather than to testing them.

  4. 4.

    Goldberg et al. (2016) studied career advancement with a dual focus on the effects of similarity of vocabulary of senders and receivers of e-mails (cultural fit) and the structural positions of nodes in e-mail networks.

References

  • Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bavelas, A. (1951). Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2002). Bridge decay. Social Networks, 24(4), 333–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S., & Merluzzi, J. (2016). Network oscillation. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R., & Cummings, J. N. (2004). Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 928–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vaan, M., Vedres, B., & Stark, D. (2015). Game changer: The topology of creativity. American Journal of Sociology, 120(4), 1144–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A., Sameer, B., Srivastava, V. G. M., Monroe, W., & Potts, C. (2016). Fitting in or standing out? The tradeoffs of structural and cultural embeddedness. American Sociological Review, 81(6), 1190–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenland, S. (2003). Quantifying biases in causal models: Classical confounding vs collider-stratification Bias. Epidemiology, 14(3), 300–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halaby, C. N. (2003). Where job values come from. American Sociological Review, 68, 251–278.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogendoorn, S., Parker, S. C., & Van Praag, M. (2017). Smart or diverse start-up teams? Evidence from a field experiment. Organization Science, 28(6), 1010–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutter, M., & Stark, D. (2015). Pragmatist perspectives on valuation: An introduction. In A. Antal, M. Hutter, & D. Stark (Eds.), Moments of valuation: Exploring sites of dissonance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 277–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of Philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations (pp. 216–239). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt, D. J. (1999). The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organization. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 16, 183–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenfle, S., Masson, P. L., & Weil, B. (2016). When project management meets design theory: Revisiting the Manhattan and Polaris projects to characterize ‘radical Innovation’ and its managerial implications. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(3), 378–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mom, T. J. M., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody, M., & Thevenot, L. (2000). Comparing models of strategy, interests, and the public good in French and American Environmental disputes. In M. Lamont & L. Thevenot (Eds.), Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States (pp. 273–306). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nebus, J. (2006). Building collegial information networks: A theory of advice network generation. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 615–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the Tertius Iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, H., Chung, M.-H., & Labianca, G. (2004). Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 860–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pachucki, M. A., & Breiger, R. L. (2010). Cultural holes: Beyond relationality in social networks and culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 205–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palla, G., Derényi, I., Farkas, I., & Vicsek, T. (2005). Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society. Nature, 435(7043), 814–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. N., & Corte, U. (2017). Placing collaborative circles in strategic action fields: Explaining differences between highly creative groups. Sociological Theory, 35(4), 261–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. N., & Hackett, E. J. (2012). Hot spots and hot moments in scientific collaborations and social movements. American Sociological Review, 77(1), 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social Capital of Corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogan, M., & Mors, M. L. (2014). A network perspective on individual ambidexterity in organizations. Organization Science, 25(6), 1860–1877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis. A handbook (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. E. (1964). Communication networks. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 111–147). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Siciliano, M. D. (2015). Advice networks in public organizations: The role of structure, internal competition, and individual attributes. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 548–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, D. (2009). The sense of dissonance. Accounts of Worth in Economic Life: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tortoriello, M., & Krackhardt, D. (2010). Activating cross-boundary knowledge: The role of Simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 167–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. The American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 357–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatin, F. (2013). Valuation as evaluating and valorizing. Valuation Studies, 1(1), 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vedres, B., & Stark, D. (2010). Structural folds: Generative disruption in overlapping groups. American Journal of Sociology, 115(4), 1150–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wal, T., Anne, L. J., Alexy, O., Block, J., & Sandner, P. G. (2016). The best of both worlds. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 393–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ylä-Anttila, T., & Luhtakallio, E. (2016). Justifications analysis: Understanding moral evaluations in public debates. Sociological Research Online, 21(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Antti Gronow & Aasa Karimo

  2. Research and Development, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland

    Anssi Smedlund

Authors
  1. Antti Gronow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anssi Smedlund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aasa Karimo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antti Gronow .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland

    Hanna Lehtimäki

  2. Frisky & Anjoy, Helsinki, Finland

    Petri Uusikylä

  3. Research and Development, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland

    Anssi Smedlund

Appendices

Appendix 1

Operationalization of the valuation questions (the titles of the “worlds” were not shown in the questionnaire)

Please indicate how important you consider the following factors to be (1 = “not at all important”; 2 = “not very important”; 3 = “somewhat important”; 4 = “fairly important”; 5 = “very important”).

  1. 1.

    Market World

    • My salary or other monetary compensation is good.

    • My company pays a better salary than its competitors.

    • My company succeeds better than its competitors.

  2. 2.

    Industrial World

    • My company operates efficiently.

    • The targets of the company are clear.

    • The division of responsibilities among employees is functional.

  3. 3.

    Civic World

    • Employees can participate in the company’s decision-making.

    • All employees are being treated equally.

    • Employee rights are explicit in the company.

  4. 4.

    World of Fame

    • My job is valued in society.

    • My company is well known.

    • I am able to network widely in my job.

  5. 5.

    World of Inspiration

    • I am able to fulfill myself at work.

    • Company culture promotes my creativity.

    • I am passionate about my work.

  6. 6.

    Domestic World

    • I trust my closest colleagues.

    • In my company, the superiors are held in esteem and respected.

    • In my work, I accumulate competence that is being transferred to future employees.

  7. 7.

    World of Ecology

    • I am able to promote environmental welfare in my work.

    • The company functions in accordance with sustainable development.

    • My work promotes the use of renewable energy.

Appendix 2

Reliability statistics for all valuations

 

Cronbach’s Alpha

Number of items

Market

0.634

3

Industrial

0.488

3

Civic

0.241

3

Fame

0.688

3

Inspiration

0.682

3

Domestic

0.568

3

Ecology

0.776

3

  1. The valuations used for constructing the composite variable are indicated with bold characters

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gronow, A., Smedlund, A., Karimo, A. (2020). How Overlapping Connections Between Groups Interact with Value Differences in Explaining Creativity?. In: Lehtimäki, H., Uusikylä, P., Smedlund, A. (eds) Society as an Interaction Space. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 22. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0069-5_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation