Relationship Dynamics on Org Change

Available online at http://www.anpad.org.br/bar BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr./June 2011 Using Social Networks Theory as a Complementary Per spective to the Study of Organizational Change Manuel Portugal Ferreira * E-mail address: [email protected] Instituto Politécnico de Leiria Leiria, Portugal. Sungu Armagan E-mail address: [email protected] Florida International University Miami, FL, USA. * Corresponding author: Manuel Portugal Ferreira Morro do Lena, Alto do Vieiro, Leiria, 2411-911, Po rtugal.

Copyright © 2011 Brazilian Administration Review. A ll rights reserved, including rights for translation. Parts of this work may be quoted witho ut prior knowledge on the condition that the source is identified. Using Social Networks Theory 169 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar Abstract This paper contributes to the literature on organiz ational change by examining organizations as social entities embedded in inter-organizational networks. In contr ast with extant research that focuses on macro environmental and internal factors to explain organizational chan ge, we put forth the social network surrounding the firm as a major driver of any change process. Specifically, w e examine organizational change as driven by the organizations’ positions and relations in an intero rganizational network, and advance a set of theory driven propositions on innovation, imitation, inertia, str uctural equivalence and structural positioning. Our conceptual discussion demonstrates that inter-organizational n etworks are important in complementing the macro- environment and internal organizational factors for the study of organizational changes. We conclude w ith a discussion on normative implications for organizati ons and avenues for future research.

Key words : organizational change; social networks. M. P. Ferreira, S. Armagan 170 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar Introduction Organizational change has long been considered esse ntial to understanding the dynamics of organizations (Aldrich, 1999). Organizations change to augment and leverage their competencies and update possible competitive advantages (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996), especially when facing intense competition. Organizations also change to adjust to changing conditions in the environment. How firms deploy their strategies to react (adjust) or to undertake a pro-active action is one of the foci of strategic management research. For instance, firms may acquire other organizations to access knowledge not yet held (Ferreira, 2005), enter into an alliance to access new markets (Contractor & Lorange, 1988) or generally seek new opportunities beyond their immediate competitive landscape through network forms of organization (Gulati, 1995 , 1998).

The extant literature has examined how environmenta l factors, such as the societal demographic, technological customer demands, econom ic, legal and political situations and internal conditions, such as personnel decisions and organiz ational strategy, affect the initiation and implementation of organizational change (e.g., Gers ick, 1991; Kimberly & Quinn, 1984; Tushman & Romanelli, 1985). However, much less attention has been paid to the role of social networks in organizational change, either as the actual trigger of the change or for the input, information, examp les and so forth that they may bring in. By organizatio nal change behaviors, we mean the organizational activities associated with initiating and implement ing changes, but also the outcomes of those changes (see Weick & Quinn, 1999).

Organizations may operate change in many ways. In t his paper we focus specifically on the role of the organizations’ networks – i.e., on the busin ess and social relationships that firms hold. There is abundant research on the importance of social netwo rks for firms’ success (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Gulati, 1995, 1998; Tenkasi & Chesmore, 2003), and more generally on a variety of firms’ economic behaviors (Granovetter, 1985). These relationships form structures that are capable of influencing firms’ behaviors, including organizational change, by promoting or constraining their access to information, physical, financial and social resourc es, such as legitimacy (Baum, Calabrese, & Silverman, 2000; Granovetter, 1985; Mohrman, Tenkas i, & Mohrman, 2003).

The firms’ social networks may be a major driver, a nd similarly a major barrier, of any organization change process. For instance, Tushman and Romanelli (1985, p. 177) noted that “networks of interdependent resource relationships and value commitment generated by its structure often prevent its being able to change”, suggesting that an organization might be bound by other firms ’ expectations and needs. Some scholars have studied how interorganizational relations influence organizational learning and innovation (Powell, Kop ut, & Smith-Doerr, 1996; Shan, Walker, & Kogut, 1994), but change encompasses more than just learni ng. Notwithstanding, existing research falls short of clarifying the role of the firms’ social network s for change endeavors. In this paper, we examine the influence of the soci al networks on a focal firm’s change behaviors by synthesizing the literature on organization chan ge and on social networks. Specifically, we put forward the argument that the position and relation s – particularly, connectedness, density, centrality and structural equivalence - of a firm in its network w ill affect the firm’s change behaviors. The social network in which a focal firm is embedded either co nstrains or facilitates the firm’s access to resources, information, legitimacy and power (Aldrich, 1979; B urt, 1992; Granovetter, 1985; Gulati, 1998; Rowley, 1997). In short, we contribute to the current under standing of the importance of social networks to initiate and operate organizational change, complem enting the more frequent approaches based on an internally driven process or as the outcome of broa der external environment influences.

This paper is structured as follows. First, we revi ew the literature on organizational change, then on social networks. Third, we examine how networks may influence organizational change behaviors and develop a set of theory-driven propositions. We conclude with a discussion, implications for theory and practice and pointing out avenues for fu ture research. Using Social Networks Theory 171 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar Organizational Change Organizational change may be analyzed from many ang les. Following Damanpour (1988), we conceptualize organizational change as including ma ny types of change, such as technological, administrative, strategic, and so forth. For instan ce, behaviorists study how employees’ cognition and behaviors constrain organizational change (e.g., Ge rsick, 1989; Greve & Taylor, 2000), and institutionalists emphasize how institutional norms maintain the stability of organizations (e.g., DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Hannan & Freeman, 1984). N onetheless, understanding how firms change requires the understanding of the underlying change process (Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). Weick and Quinn (1999) refer to the process of organizational change as encompassing three stages: the initiation, implementation and outcome of change. We briefly review these three stages.

The initiation refers to the causes, or triggers, of organizationa l change. Huber, Sutcliffe, Miller and Glick (1993) found five triggers of change: the macro-environment – such as those emerging from shifts in the economy, politics, technology or demo graphy –, performance, characteristics of top managers, structure and strategy. More recently Gre ve and Taylor (2000) explored the role of innovations in catalyzing organizational change. Mo reover, the initiation of change should be examined as to whether it is episodic - episodic change is mainly driven externally (Romanelli & Tushman, 1994; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996) – or conti nuous - continuous change is caused by organizational instability and alert reactions to d aily contingencies (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Orlikowski, 1996). We add to these causes that the firms’ social networks are a likely initiator of change.

The implementation refers to the process of carrying out organization al change. Firms may face some degree of inertia, or inability, to chang e as rapidly as the environment (Pfeffer, 1997) and extant research has attributed different motives fo r that inertia, such as the deep structures (Gersick, 1991) that, among others, refers to the organizatio n and the activities that guarantee the firms’ existence. An important barrier to change is the id entity or culture of the organization, which will require a minor (first-order change) or major (seco nd-order) change in the cognitive structure (Bartunek, 1993). Other sources of inertia include the routines (Gioia, 1992), top management tenure (Virany, Tushman, & Romanelli, 1992), identity main tenance (Sevon, 1996), culture (Harrison & Carroll, 1991), complacency (Kotter, 1996), institu tional norms (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) and technology employed (Tushman & Rosenkopf, 1992). Th e works by Levitt and March (1988), Leonard-Barton (1992) and Miller (1993) denote how a source of inertia may emerge from possible competency traps for organizations that have been s uccessful and are less focused on observing the signals they need for change. Perhaps more fundamen tal are the internal constraints that hinder change or, as Romanelli and Tushman (1994, p. 1144) put it , organizations may resist change because they consist of a “system of interrelated organizational parts that are maintained by mutual dependencies among the parts and with competitive, regulatory an d technological systems outside the organization that reinforce the legitimacy of managerial choices that produced the parts”.

To overcome inertia and proceed with the implementa tion of change, some form of intervention or trigger is needed. Unlike episodic change, conti nuous change requires a somewhat different form of intervention in the form of redirecting of what is already underway (Argyris, 1990). However, to implement change, and most notably radical change, firms require financial, informational, physical and human resources (Aldrich, 1999). In an isolated firm the resources are either derived from within (Barney, 1991) or procured from markets (Williamson , 1985). In contrast, in a networked organization, the resources might be obtained from the network partners.

The outcome of organizational change is the effect of change. For instance, it may refer to whether a new technology replaces or only adjusts o ld systems in an organization. The outcome may be evaluated in terms of an improved likelihood of survival, growth or the firm’s profitability post- change. Notwithstanding, not only will the implemen tation process impact the outcome of the M. P. Ferreira, S. Armagan 172 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar organizational change, but also holding the require d resources and prior experiences of change will facilitate the change.

To sum up, the phases of the change process - initi ation, implementation and outcome - are central to studying organizational change behaviors and are fundamental when it comes to discussing the influence of the social network on organization al change. In the following section we define and discuss organizational social networks, providing s ome general principles and concepts of social network analysis.

Social Networks Organizations are embedded in a wider external envi ronment that shapes how and what organizations do (Aldrich, 1979; Scott, 1991). Seve ral studies have described how firms are engaged in networks of relationships, for diverse purposes. For instance, the resource dependence theory proposes that organizations are not self-sufficient and need to engage in interdependent exchanges with other agents in their environment (Pfeffer & S alancik, 1978). The institutional theory suggests that institutional norms greatly constrain organiza tional behaviors (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Hannan & Freeman, 1984; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The literatu re on strategic alliances advocates that firms form alliances with suppliers, distributors, banks and competitors to gain access to such resources as capital, information, knowledge, technology, social endorsement and legitimacy to create and maintain a competitive advantage (Gulati, 1995, 1998; Stuart , Hoang, & Hybels, 1999; Walker, Kogut, & Shan, 1997).

In this paper, we follow Lauman, Galaskiewicz and M arsden’s (1978, p. 458) definition of social network as a social system in which a finite set of organizati ons (e.g., suppliers, distributors, financial institutions, universities, governments) directly o r indirectly connect to each other by various social relationships (e.g., strategic alliance, int erlocking, personal relationship, affiliation) and whose structural pattern will constrain or facilita te member organizations’ behaviors through various mechanisms (e.g., information flow, knowled ge sharing, resource complementary).

A social network is thus a social structure compose d of firms or individuals that are connected in specific patterns and are interdependent. The so cial networks research examines relations among organizations and argues that organizations’ econom ic behaviors are embedded and dependent on their social relationships (Aldrich & Whetten, 1981; Gran ovetter, 1985; Mizruchi & Galaskiewicz, 1993).

There is little insight to be gained in restating t hat network or inter-organizational relationships are a vital part of the environment for modern orga nizations (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Kraatz, 1998; Park, 1996; Uzzi, 1996). It is also well understood that organizational adaptation is crucial to success in the context of continuous, sometimes dramatic, environm ental changes. However, the effects that social networks have on organization change are somewhat l ess understood, although it seems reasonable to sustain that inter-organizational relationships hav e a vital influence on driving firms to change and on how change is implemented (Kraatz, 1998; Mohrman et al., 2003; Tenkasi & Chesmore, 2003; Uzzi, 1996). Moreover, the extant research has piled evid ence that most organizations are located in widely differing networks of directly and indirectly linke d organizations through a variety of relationships with different purposes, and that the networks may be strategically managed and reconfigured according to the firms’ life cycle and needs (Ferre ira, Serra, & Santos, 2010; Hite & Hesterly, 2001). Two classic examples of these social networks are f ound in the textile industry cluster in northern Italy and in the plastic moulding cluster in Portugal, wh ere firms form complex links with each other through a wide array of family and business relatio ns, social club memberships, and community ties (Ferreira, Tavares, & Hesterly, 2006; Wasserman & F aust, 1994). Using Social Networks Theory 173 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar A focal firm needs to establish relationships with multiple organizations to obtain resources, institutional legitimacy, information, and so forth (see Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999; Hite & Hesterly, 2001). These ties connecting firms may take various forms, from contractual agreements such as a strategic alliances (Gulati, 1995; Stuart et al., 1999) to the more informal personal relationships (Macaulay, 1963) binding individuals and firms. The network ties between organizations may significantly influence the firm’s actions and outc omes. Table 1 summarizes the main principles and assumptions in social network analyses. Table 1 Network Analysis Principles and Assumptions Principles Assumptions Behavior is interpreted in terms of structural constraints on activity rather than in terms of inn er forces within units. Actors and their actions are viewed as interdependent units. Analyses focus on the relations between units.

Relational ties between actors are channels for the transfer of resources. Concerned with how the pattern of relationships among multiple actors jointly affects network members’ behaviors. Network models focusing on individuals view the network structure as providing opportunities for an d constraints on individual actions.

Analytical methods deal directly with the patterned relational nature of social structure.

Network models conceptualize structure (whether social, economic, political, etc. as enduring patte rns of relations among actors. Note . Source: Adapted from Rowley, T. (1997). Moving bey ond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences (p.

893). Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), 887-910.

Networks, macro-environmental and internal factors In this paper we examine why social networks might influence organization change. The social networks are herein suggested to complement the mac ro-environmental and internal approaches in explaining organizational change. These three appro aches highlight rather distinct change mechanisms. The macro-environmental factors suggest that organizations should proactively initiate changes, such as innovations, to reshape their mark etplace (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). For example, computer processor manufactures invest heavily in R &D to lead technological change and not be overtaken by competitors. Moreover, firms should al so attempt to predict the future direction of environmental shifts and react proactively (Porras & Silver, 1991) to reduce potential negative effects caused by discontinuous, or radical, environmental changes. On the other hand, the internal factors suggest that organizations focus on addressing inte rnal structures, including cognitive or cultural ones, and procedures to facilitate organizational changes (Gersick, 1991; Woodman, 1989). For instance, organizations need to develop an organizational cul ture that embraces change and deploy flexible organizational structures to embrace adaptability.

The social networks analysis recommends that organi zations develop ties to other firms in a network to make the most of their positions and rel ations (Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999). At least to some level, firms seem to be better at constructing and perhaps at manipulating their networks than at dealing with macro-environmental shifts. For exampl e, Hite and Hesterly (2001) argued that firms strategically redesign the composition of their net works to fulfill resource needs, when moving from the emergence to the early growth stage. Baum et al. (2000) found that start-ups configure their networks to provide efficient access to diverse inf ormation and capabilities with minimum costs of redundancy, conflict and complexity. These studies suggest that network members are possible sources of a variety of physical, social, financial and market resources. We summarize some of the M. P. Ferreira, S. Armagan 174 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar main differences between the three approaches in Ta ble 2. The differences highlighted in Table 2 partly explain why the study of social networks wil l provide somewhat different prescriptive implications for organizational change.

Table 2 Contrasting Macro-environmental, Internal and the S ocial Network’s Influence on Organization Change Dimensions Macro-environmental Internal Inter-organ izational Level of analysis Macro-level Organizational, group, individual level Organizational network The role of organizations in response to changes Organizations respond passively to environmental changes without too much latitude to manipulate environments.

Notwithstanding, organizations can reasonably predict environmental changes and take proactive actions. Organizations have complete control over internal changes in terms of radicalness, frequency and duration.

However, outcomes of internal changes also depend on external factors.

The degree of control that organizations have over changes initiated inside the network depends on their positions and relations in networks. The scope of influence Changes in macro- environments usually have an impact on the wide range of organizations, for example, an industry. Internal changes generally have a direct impact on organizations’ subunits.

Without the existence of interorganizational ties, these changes will be confined within organizations. Changes taking place inside a network will mainly be confined within the network. The range of influence depends on the whole configuration of the network. An organization’s position and relations in the network define how much influence it can be subject to. Change mechanisms Change is initiated by macro-factors that lie outside of the organizations’ control. The influence will be directly felt by organizations. Some changes will diffuse through interorganizational interdependence. Organizations usually initiate organizational change by themselves and implement change in a top-down fashion. Administrative power plays an important role.

Two types of change mechanisms: Possibility to change a. Imitation b. Diffusion c. Resource accessibility d. Diverse and new information e. Power leverage Pressure to change a. Interdependence b. Division of labor Representative studies Huber et al. (1993); Romanelli and Tushman (1994); Tushman and Anderson (1986) Gersick (1989); Schein (1996); Morrison and Milliken (2000) Powell et al. (1996) Using Social Networks Theory 175 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar Therefore, the networks are likely to be change-ini tiating triggers on a more regular and continuous base than external and possibly internal factors. Networks often exert coercive collective pressure impelling the organization to adapt. Partl y, that is because network relationships create interdependence among organizations (Park, 1996), a s firms compromise autonomy in exchange for access to some sort of strategic resources (Ferreir a et al. , 2006; Hite & Hesterly, 2001). Moreover, changes in one organization may lead to a domino effect in a network, and the more so the stronger and denser the ties connecting firms (Tenkasi & Che smore, 2003). The Role of Social Networks in Organizational Chang e How do organizational networks influence the initia tion, implementation and outcomes of change? In this section we discuss five ways in whi ch social networks influence organization change:

innovation, imitation, inertia, structural equivale nce and structural positioning. Innovative dynamism and change: looking at connecte dness The density of a network is perhaps the most widely used construct of connectedness (Friedkin, 1984) and group cohesion (1) (Blau, 1977) among network members. The density of the network in which a firm is embedded is likely to affect change processes. In denser networks there are more ties among firms, and these ties serve as channels for t he faster flow of information concerning markets, best practices and institutional norms (Meyer & Row an, 1977), innovation, technology, and so forth (Tenkasi & Chesmore, 2003). Connecting tightly with other organizations, a focal organization has more channels to detect both the opportunities and the modifications occurring in its environment.

Innovative dynamism and access to new knowledge are often considered important triggers of organizational change (Weick & Quinn, 1999). Powell et al. (1996) noted the importance of inter-firm interfaces, particularly close and strong connectio ns, in transferring tacit knowledge. In fact, the strong ties perspective (Krackhardt, 1992; Uzzi, 1996) pos tulates that frequent interaction, intimacy, trust and reciprocity facilitate the flow of information and knowledge resources among firms and may be better suited for the change implementation process. Park (1996), using a resource-based view, stressed that the transfer of tacit knowledge from other organiza tions is critical for building a competitive advantage. Brown and Duguid (1991), Porter (1987), Powell et al. (1996) and Ibarra (1993), among, others, have shown that interconnectedness plays a critical role in organizational innovation processes, adoption and diffusion. According to Park (1996, p. 799) “the open-ended, relational features of networks, therefore, greatly enhance the ability to transmit and learn new knowledge and skills for an innovation”. Astley and Fombrun (1983) have noted h ow technological innovations were carried out mainly by a complex and wide range of inter-firm ne tworks in the telecommunication industry. Shan et al. (1994) found that the number of ties between start -ups and established firms is positively related to their innovative output in the biotechnology ind ustry. Hence, it seems reasonable to suggest that organizational change is fuelled by access to new o pportunities and resources, namely knowledge resources, that feed innovations that are likely to be more abundant in denser networks.

Proposition 1 . An organization in a denser organizational networ k is likely to have more frequent innovations driving organizational change. Imitation and change: sparseness and density of the network The denser the network, the more likely it is that we may observe more intensive imitation – which is another mechanism potentially driving the firms to change. In other words, denser networks may drive institutional conformity among members (D iMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977) and over time firms will come to increasingly resemble one another. In a study of mimetic processes, Galaskiewicz and Wasserman (1989), for e xample, noted that organizations in the same M. P. Ferreira, S. Armagan 176 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar network mimicked one another’s behaviors to gain le gitimacy. For instance, using interlocking directors may lead them to mimic each other (Haunsc hild, 1993), namely regarding corporate governance practices, but arguably a set of procedu res, norms and organizational formats. The importance of imitation is reflected in Sevon’s (19 96, pp. 60-61) statement that “every theory of organizational change must take into account the fa ct that leaders of organizations watch one another and adopt what they perceive as successful strategi es for growth and organizational structure”. In short, imitation in a network might be the trigger for organizational change, as organizations have access to and use each other as referents.

Membership in a network creates strong interdepende nce between organizations, particularly when strong ties exist and will pressure organizati ons to change in line with other organizations. The se are isomorphic pressures whereby organizations tend to come to resemble each other over time. A stronger density of connectedness facilitates firms to understand the purpose and what needs to change (Cook, 2001) while improving the odds of the implem entation itself and of success (Krackhardt, 1994) In short, by connecting with other organizations, a n organization is subject to not only the changes initiated by itself but also to the changes initiat ed by other organizations (Aldrich & Whetten, 1981) .

In a richly joined system, the frequency of changes will likely be higher and any external influence that has a disturbing influence on one link of the system might eventually affect the entire chain of links, due to the large number of links through whi ch outside events flow into the chain.

Proposition 2 . An organization in a denser organizational networ k is likely to experience change through imitation more often than an organiz ation in a sparser network.

Inertia and change: interdependency among firms Interdependency among subunits is a main source of inertia against change (Porras & Silver, 1991). The discussions on alignment (Pfeffer, 1998) , configurations (Miller, 1990) and cultural inertia (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996) offer some insights into this line of argument. When interrelations among firms are abundant (or dense) and strong, it will take a larger intervention to realign them.

Firms do not exist in an isolated world. In a dense network, hazards in a firm may bear a negative impact on other network members. It is lik ely that the social norms of the network may pressure a firm to follow other firms’ changes and fulfill the others’ expectations (Gersick, 1991). In addition, the larger information and communication channels among network members will expose the firms to new strategies or management practices use d by other organizations, increasing the likelihood of imitation. In contrast, organizations in sparser networks will be more isolated and hold less abundant channels for communications and diffusion both within and across the network and will not endeavor to imitate either these pressures or the a bundance of opportunities stemming from other organizations.

The density of the network is likely to affect the duration of organizational changes.

Organizations in denser networks are more interconn ected and interdependent, whereby an eventual change in an organization will also influence other organizations with which it is tied. For example, the introduction of a new product by a firm will re quire adaptations by the suppliers (e.g., production facilities) and the sellers (e.g., marketing strate gies). Thus, changes in one firm will likely have implications for other firms up - and down-wards in the value chain, requiring connected firms to make complementary changes. Hence, in a network, an y organizational change is imprisoned by the partners’ ability to accompany change. Thus, it see ms reasonable to suggest that a change in a focal organization will take longer to implement when eng aged in a network. Indeed Simon (1962) argued that it takes longer for a system with a strong net work of links between elements to reach a stable state.

Proposition 3 . An organization in a denser network is likely to take a longer period of time to implement and complete change than in a sparser net work. This period will be longer the higher the interdependence among the firms in the network. Using Social Networks Theory 177 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar Structural equivalence and change: a matter of simi larity Structural equivalence, also referred to as structu ral isomorphism (Winship, 1988), occurs when two (or more) actors have identical ties to and fro m all other actors in the network (Borgatti & Everent, 1992; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). It is like ly that in a network some firms occupy similar structural positions due to the complex interconnec tions we have discussed. It is thus probable that not only the organizations’ structural positions influe nce their behaviors, but also that structurally equivalent organizations behave similarly. For inst ance, evidence for similarity of behaviors is found in Coleman, Katz and Menzel’s (1957) conclusion tha t while a physician is likely to adopt and prescribe a new drug using information gathered fro m manufacturers and published studies, the likelihood increases once he is aware that other ph ysicians have already adopted that same drug.

Kilduff (1993) also found that people in structural ly equivalent positions tend to have similar perceptions.

Firms in structurally equivalent positions may perc eive each other as similar and act similarly.

Several studies have argued that social positions s uch as structural equivalence drive social homogeneity (e.g., Burt, 1987; Hartman & Johnson, 1 990). Following this line of argument, we may suggest that if one firm adopts a new course of act ion, a different strategy, an innovation, and so forth, its structural equivalents are likely to behave iso morphically, taking identical actions. A general proposition may thus be formulated as:

Proposition 4 . An organization’s actions for change are likely t o be influenced by those of a structural equivalent to others operating in the sa me network. Structural positioning and change: firm’s centralit y The structural positioning of the firm, namely the centrality (Freeman, 1979), in the network matters. Positioning refers to the location of a fo cal “actor” relative to other firms in the network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). According to Ibarra (199 3), the position of an actor, be it an individual or an organization, determines its status, the extent of involvement in relationships and its visibility to the others. Burt (1992) argued that different positions in a network provide different degrees of access t o, and control over, valued resources. An organization’s centrality is a core construct in structural positioning. Centrality has to do with how close a focal actor is to all the other ac tors in the network. An actor is central if it is involved in communication between other two actors (Freeman, 1979). Central organizations serve as communication channels between organizations transf erring resources, information and clients (Aldrich & Whetten, 1981). As Aldrich and Whetten ( 1981, p. 397) stated “organizations in a central position have easy access to information about pote ntial innovations and by manipulating the flow of information, as well as exerting influence, can dir ect the allocation of a population’s resources in an innovative direction”. The central firms broker the information flows (Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and the centrality provides its holder with more access to updated information concerning external environmental changes. Moreover, central organizati ons have the most ties to other organizations in the network and are recognized by others as a major channel of relational information. In contrast, peripheral actors are not as active in the relation al process (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).

The central organizations have access to a variety of resources pooled together by the network, which provide them with more chances to innovate th an peripheral organizations (Ibarra, 1993).

Moreover, the position itself exerts some pressure on the central organization to change if it wishes to maintain a competitive advantage. Due to the broade r access to information, it is more likely that the central organization will accurately predict the fu ture directions of environmental shifts and be able to proactively adapt. Porras and Silver (1991, p. 54) stated that: “creating a better fit between the organization’s capabilities and its current environ mental demands, or promoting changes that help the organization to better fit predicted future environ ments”. M. P. Ferreira, S. Armagan 178 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar Proposition 5. A more central organization is likely to change m ore frequently than a less central organization.

The central actor is the pacesetter, and it is like ly that the central firm initiates change. In some instances the central firm is the referent model th at others imitate (Haveman, 1993). Due to its contr ol over information and physical resources, the centra l organization has more power to coordinate other organizations that are interdependent on each other (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). In addition to accessing more resources, which will help the central firm change frequently, firms may draw some power by occupying central posi tions (Mizruchi & Galaskiewicz, 1993). The environmental shifts carry uncertainties and risks that are to a large extent have to do with the fact that there is limited information about them. An argumen t could be made that firms in firms in the periphery could actually start adopting the increme ntal changes and as these prove their effectiveness they could then be passed on gradually to the neigh boring units (Krackhardt, 1997; Tenkasi & Chesmore, 2003). However, it is more likely that fi rms that access more information and resources are better able to predict the future direction of chan ges, possibly being able to proceed with implementi ng both smaller incremental changes to continuously ke ep pace with environments and the larger-scale changes that encompass multiple systems of the orga nization. These changes are more likely to be successfully implemented by central, rather than pe ripheral, organizations.

Proposition 6 . A more central organization is likely to change m ore successfully than a less central organization. Discussion and Concluding Remarks We have noted that social networks influence organi zations’ change behaviors in many respects.

Organizational change may be scrutinized through ma cro-environmental, internal and also network factors. Focusing on inter-firm relationships may y ield refreshing explanations for organizational change. The normative prescriptions for practitione rs using a network perspective are likely to complement those prescribed by a focus on the macro -environmental and internal organizational factors.

Studying the impact of social networks on organizat ional change might be extended in a number of important ways. For instance, future research ma y seek to delimit the boundaries of a network to better understand which firms have more influence o n any change process, and which firms are most influenced by another’s actions. How are firms indi rectly connected to the source of change influenced? Furthermore, for simplification purpose s we did not delve deeply into hybrid governance forms, such as joint ventures, equity-based strateg ic alliances and interlocking directorates. However , examining these types of inter-firm interfaces may help account for imitation, inertia and who firms use as referent others. The examination of constructs such as density or ce ntrality of organizations in a network may be improved upon when we include the types of ties that bind firms. The most widely studied characteristic of ties is strong/weak ties. The str ength of a tie is given by “a combination of the am ount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mut ual confiding) and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie” (Granovetter, 1973, p. 1361). The strength of a tie may be also determined by th e frequency of interaction among firms and, more impo rtantly, that firms connected by strong ties tend to be similar in various ways (Granovetter, 1973; H aveman, 1993; Lorrain & White, 1971). Friedkin (1984) and Collins (1988) noted that a network tigh tly connected through strong ties would create homogeneity among members, whereby organizations ar e less prone to seeking and receiving new information from outside the network. These organiz ations are probably lee less likely to initiate change, and will be more isolated from other firms (Collins, 1988). Using Social Networks Theory 179 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar Future research might even observe how organization al change may vary concerning the magnitude and scope (Gersick, 1991) of change, or t o how fundamental an organizational change is and to what extent the activities, structures, and so forth, post-change differ from those previously established (Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). Some scholars have distinguished between incremental and radical change to reflect that whil e incremental change is manifest in small and gradual adjustments, which consist essentially of v ariations on the same theme (Nadler, Shaw, & Walton , 1995), radical change entails a substantial depart ure, divergence, revolution (Weick & Quinn, 1999), quantum change (Miller & Friesen, 1984) or t ransformation (Porras & Silver, 1991). While the radical changes tend to involve the entire organiza tion, often leading to the shattering of the established pattern of behaviors, the incremental c hanges are small in magnitude, narrow in scope, and do not change the structures of the firm (Gersick, 1991). An additional avenue for future research could delv e into the nature of the network, whose impact on any change process may be non negligible. This could involve, for instance, exploring the strength of the ties binding firms, cohesion and tr ust, the purpose of the network, and so forth. In b rief, it may not only be the network but the type of netw ork or other characteristic that is idiosyncratic to the network that comes into play when we assess the influence of social networks on organizational change. How radical an organizational change is, is central to describing organizational dynamics (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985). The radicalness of the change will likely influence the outcome of the change, and it seems reasonable to suggest that a f irm that endeavors and implements radical changes more appropriately will likely outperform competito rs. Future research might explore whether an organization in a denser network will be more likel y to experience radical change than an organization in a sparse network.

We have contributed to the theme by establishing a set of propositions on how networks impact organizational change. By observing the organizatio n’s network we are able to place it in its social milieu. For practitioners, we have suggested that i t is fundamental to build the firm’s network strategically. The network is likely to be the prim ary driver of the ability to change, whether adapti ng or responding pro-actively to environmental shifts. Firms need to invent, learn, adapt to customers’ demands, become more efficient and provide higher q uality goods and services if they wish to succeed.

To conclude, social networks seem to matter when it comes to organization change. The social network members are vehicles for the flow of a vari ety of social, physical and financial resources and information. The network members are also closer to other firms that seek to imitate them, but they also form a protective womb that leads to inertia a nd the inability to proceed with change. Whatever the specific mechanisms considered, the social netw ork in which a firm operates is a fundamental driver of organizational change. Received 24 March 2010; received in revised form 16 August 2010. Note 1 Actually, density only reflects the number of relationships (or ties) that exist among a set of organizations in the network, without disclosing details on the nature of the tie s (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).

References Aldrich, E. (1979). Organizational environment . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. M. P. Ferreira, S. Armagan 180 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar Aldrich, E. (1999). Organizational evolving . London: Sage Publication Ltd.

Aldrich, H. E., & Whetten, D. (1981). Organization- sets, action-sets, and networks: making the most of simplicity. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (E ds.), Handbook of Organizational Design (pp. 385-408). New York: Oxford University Press. Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses. Facilitating or ganizational learning. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Astley, W., & Fombrun, C. (1983). Collective strate gy: social ecology of organizational environments. Academy of Management Review, 8(4), 576-587. doi:10.2307/258259 Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained com petitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99-120. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108 Bartunek, J. (1993). The multiple cognitions and co nflicts associated with second order organizational change. In J. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: advances in th eory and research (pp. 322-349). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall .

Baum, J., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. (2000). Do n’t go it alone: alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 267- 294. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<267:: AID-SMJ89>3.0.CO;2-8 Blau, P. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity . New York: Free Press.

Borgatti, S., & Everett, M. (1992). Notions of posi tion in social network analysis. Sociological Methodology, 22 , 1-35. Brown, S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational lear ning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57. doi:

10.1287/orsc.2.1.40 Burt, R. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: c ohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), 1287-1335. doi:10.2307/2779839 Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: the social structure of competiti on. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Coleman, J., Kantz, E., & Menzel, H. (1957). The di ffusion of an innovation among physicians.

Sociometry, 20 (4), 253-270.

Collins, R. (1988). Theoretical sociology . New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Contractor, F., & Lorange, P. (1988). Cooperative strategies in international business . Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Cook, J. (2001). Social networks: a primer . Durham, NC: Duke University.

Damanpour, F. (1988). Innovation type, radicalness, and the adoption process. Communication Research, 15 (5), 545-567. doi: 10.1177/009365088015005003 DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage re visited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view; cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679. doi: 10.2307/259056 Using Social Networks Theory 181 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar Ferreira, M. P. (2005). Building and leveraging knowledge capabilities thro ugh cross border acquisitions: the effect of the MNC's capabilities and knowledge strategy on the degree of equity ownership acquired . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Ferreira, M. P., Serra, F., & Santos, J. (2010). Th e international entrepreneurial firms’ social netwo rks.

Cadernos Ebape, 8 (1), 133-145. doi: 10.1590/S1679-39512010000100009 Ferreira, M. P., Tavares, A., & Hesterly, W. (2006) . A new perspective on parenting spin-offs for cluster formation. In F. Fai & E. Morgan (Eds.), Managerial Issues in International Business (pp. 67-84). Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. Freeman, L. (1979). Centrality in social networks c onceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215- 239. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7 Friedkin, N. (1984). Structural cohesion and equiva lence explanations of social homogeneity. Sociological Methods & Research, 12(3), 235-261. doi: 10.1177/0049124184012003001 Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic p rocesses within an interorganizational field: an empirical test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34 (3), 454-479.

Gersick, C. (1989). Marking time: predictable trans itions in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 32 (2), 274-309 Gersick, C. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: a multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16 (1), 10-36. doi: 10.2307/258605 Gioia, D. (1992). Pinto fires and personal ethics: a script analysis of missed opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 11 (5-6), 379-389. doi: 10.1007/BF00870550 Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. doi: 10.1086/225469 Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: a theory of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3), 481-510.

Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022-1054. doi:

10.2307/259163 Greve, H., & Taylor, A. (2000). Innovations as cata lysts for organizational change: shifts in organizational cognition and search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (1), 54-80.

Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance fo rmation patterns: a longitudinal analysis.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (4), 619-652. doi: 10.2307/2393756 Gulati, R. (1998). Alliance and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293-317. doi:

10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199804)19:4<293::AID-SMJ982 >3.0.CO;2-M Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439-1494. doi:10.2307/2990941 Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inerti a and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149-164.

Harrison, J., & Carroll, G. (1991). Keeping the fai th: a model of cultural transmission in formal organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (4), 552-582. M. P. Ferreira, S. Armagan 182 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar Hartman, A., & Johnson, J. (1990). Formal and infor mal group communication structures: an examination of their relationship to role ambiguity . Social Networks, 12 (2), 127-151.

doi:10.1016/0378-8733(90)90002-Q Haunschild, P. (1993). lnterorganizational imitatio n: the impact of interlocks on corporate acquisition activity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 , 564-592.

Haveman, H. (1993). Follow the leader: mimetic isom orphism and entry into new markets.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (4), 593-627.

Hite, J., & Hesterly, W. (2001). The evolution of f irm networks: from emergence to early growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (3), 275-286. doi: 10.1002/smj.156 Huber, G., Sutcliffe, K., Miller, C., & Glick, W. ( 1993). Understanding and predicting organizational change. In G. Huber & W. Glick (Eds.), Organizational Change and Redesign (pp. 215-265).

New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and i nnovation involvement: determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (3), 471-501.

Kilduff, M. (1993). Deconstructing organizations. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 13-31. Kimberly, J., & Quinn, R. (1984). New futures, the challenge of managing corporate tr ansitions.

Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kraatz, M. (1998). Learning by association? Interor ganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (6), 621-643.

Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: the importance of philos in organizations. In N.

Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations (pp. 216-239). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Krackhardt, D. (1994). Graph theoretical dimensions of informal organizations. In K. Carley & M.

Prietula (Eds.), Computational organization theory (pp. 216-239). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Krackhardt, D. (1997). Organizational viscosity and diffusion of controversial innovations. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 22 (2), 177-199. doi: 10.1080/0022250X.1997.9990200 Laumann, E., Galaskiewicz, J., & Marsden, P. (1978) . Community structures as interorganizational linkages. In R. Turner, J. Coleman, & R. Fox (Eds.) , Annual Review of Sociology (Vol. 4, pp.

455-484), Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and co re rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13 (S1), 111-125. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250131009 Levitt, B., & March, J. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14 , 319-340.

Lorrain, F., & White, H. (1971). Structural equival ence of Individuals in social networks. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1 , 49-80.

Macaulay, S. (1963). Non-contractual relations in b usiness: a preliminary study. American Sociological Review, 28 (1), 55-67. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organi zations: formal structure as myth and ceremony.

The American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2), 340-363. doi: 10.1086/226550 Using Social Networks Theory 183 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar Miller, D. (1990). Organizational configurations: c ohesion, changes, and prediction. Human Relations, 43 (8), 771-789. doi: 10.1177/001872679004300805 Miller, D. (1993). The architecture of simplicity. Academy of Management Review, 18 (1), 116-138.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1984). A longitudinal st udy of corporate life cycle. Management Science, 30 (10), 1161-1183.

Mizruchi, M., & Galaskiewicz, J. (1993). Networks o f interorganization relations. Sociological Methods and Research, 22 (1), 46-70. doi: 10.1177/0049124193022001003 Mohrman, S., Tenkasi, R., & Mohrman, A., Jr. (2003) . The role of networks in fundamental organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39 (3), 301-323. doi:

10.1177/0021886303258072 Morrison, E., & Miliken, F. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. The Academy of Management Review, 25 (4), 706-725.

Nadler, D., Shaw, R., & Walton, A. (1995). Discontinuous change. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Orlikowski, W. (1996). Improvising organizational t ransformation overtime: a situated change perspective. Information System Research, 7 (1), 63-92. doi: 10.1287/isre.7.1.63 Park, S. (1996). Managing an interorganizational ne twork: a framework of the institutional mechanism for network control. Organization Studies, 17 (5), 795-824. doi: 10.1177/017084069601700505 Pettigrew, A., Woodman, R., & Cameron, K. (2001). S tudying organizational change and development: challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697-713.

Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organization theory . New York: Oxford University Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: a resource d ependence perspective . New York: Harper and Row.

Porras, J., & Silver, R. (1991). Organization devel opment and transformation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42 , 51-78.

Porter, M. (1987). From competitive advantage to co rporate strategy, Harvard Business Review, 65(3), 43-59. Powell, W., Koput, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). In terorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116-145. doi:10.2307/2393988 Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: an empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (5), 1141-1166. doi: 10.2307/256669 Rowley, T. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: a net work theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), 887-910. Schein, E. (1996). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in th e field and in the classroom: notes toward a model of managed learning. Systems Practice, 9(1), 27-47. doi: 10.1007/BF02173417 Scott, W. (1991). Unpacking institutional arguments . In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 164-182). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. M. P. Ferreira, S. Armagan 184 BAR, Curitiba, v. 8, n. 2, art. 4, pp. 168-184, Apr ./June 2011 www.anpad.org.br/bar Sevon, G. (1996). Organizational imitation in ident ity transformation. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.), Translating Organizational Change (pp. 49-68). New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994). Interfirm cooperation and start-up innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (5), 387-394.

doi: 10.1002/smj.4250150505 Simon, H. (1962, December). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106 (6), 467-482. Stuart, T., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. (1999). Interor ganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (2), 315-349.

Tenkasi, R., & Chesmore, M. (2003). Social networks and planned organizational change: the impact of strong network ties on the effective change impl ementation and use. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39 (3), 281-300. doi: 10.1177/0021886303258338 Tushman, M., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological d iscontinuities and organizational environments.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 (3), 439-465.

Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (1996). The ambidextrou s organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38 (4), 1-23.

Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational revolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 171-222). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Tushman, M., & Rosenkopf, L. (1992). Organizational determinants of technological change: towards a sociology of technological evolution. Research in organizational behavior (pp. 311-347).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of em beddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674-698.

doi:10.2307/2096399 Virany, B., Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. (1992). Ex ecutive succession and organization outcomes in turbulent environments: an organizational learning approach. Organization Science, 3 (1), 72-91. doi:10.2307/2635299 Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. (1997). Social ca pital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8 (2), 109-125. doi:10.2307/2635305 Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: methods and applications . Cambridge: Cambridge University of Press.

Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change. New York: Norton. Weick, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Organizational chang e and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 361-386. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361 Williamson, O. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: firms, mar kets, relational contracting.

New York: Free Press; London: Collier Macmillan.

Winship, C. (1988). Thoughts about roles and relati ons: an old document revisited. Social Networks, 10 (3), 209-231. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(88)90013-5 Woodman, R. (1989). Organizational change and devel opment: new areas for inquiry and action.

Journal of Management, 15 (2), 205-228. doi: 10.1177/014920638901500205 Copyright of Brazilian Administration Review (BAR) is the property of Associacao Nacional de Pos-Graduacao e Pesquisa em Administracao (ANPAD) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.