Published Online:https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2021.0193

Multiplexity, the coexistence of more than one type of relationship between two actors, is a prevalent phenomenon with clear relevance for a wide range of management settings and phenomena. While there is a substantial body of work on multiplexity, the absence of a shared terminology and a typology for the mechanisms and arguments that are used in theorizing about its implications nevertheless hamper its appeal to organizational network scholars and slow its progress. Based on content analysis of 103 studies, we propose “relational harmony,” “task complementarity,” and “relational scope” as three categories to integrate the mechanisms and arguments used in the literature to theorize about the implications of multiplexity. We then survey the literature in light of this typology to show how it is also useful in revealing patterns of theorizing; for example, with respect to the types of relationships that are studied in relation to multiplexity. We conclude with suggestions for future research directions, focusing on how these can be pursued based on our integrative typology. We hope that the common ground we provide for theorizing about the implications of multiplexity will make it an even more engaging topic for organizational network and management scholars, and place it in the company of more prominently used relational constructs in management research, as aligned with its prevalence and relevance.

REFERENCES

  • Aalbers, R., Dolfsma, W., & Koppius, O. 2014. Rich ties and innovative knowledge transfer within a firm. British Journal of Management, 25: 833–848. Google Scholar
  • Abbott, A. 1983. Sequences of social events: Concepts and methods for the analysis of order in social processes. Historical Methods, 16: 129–147. Google Scholar
  • Ahuja, G., Soda, G., & Zaheer, A. 2012. The genesis and dynamics of organizational networks. Organization Science, 23: 434–448. Google Scholar
  • Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. 2007. The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 73–95. Google Scholar
  • Argote, L., Lee, S., & Park, J. 2021. Organizational learning processes and outcomes: Major findings and future research directions. Management Science, 67: 5399–5429. Google Scholar
  • Arrow, K. 1974. The limits of organization. New York, NY: Norton. Google Scholar
  • Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. 2000. All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25: 472–491.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ashforth, B. E., & Sluss, D. M. 2006. Relational identities in organizations: Healthy versus unhealthy . In O. KyriakidouM. F. Özbilgin (Eds.), Relational perspectives in organization studies: 8–27. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
  • Barden, J. Q., & Mitchell, W. 2007. Disentangling the influences of leaders’ relational embeddedness on interorganizational exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1440–1461.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Basov, N., & Brennecke, J. 2017. Duality beyond dyads: Multiplex patterning of social ties and cultural meanings . In P. GroenewegenJ. FergusonC. MoserJ. MohrS. P. Borgatti (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, vol. 53: 87–112. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald. Google Scholar
  • Becker, S. O., Hsiao, Y., Pfaff, S., & Rubin, J. 2020. Multiplex network ties and the spatial diffusion of radical innovations: Martin Luther’s leadership in the early reformation. American Sociological Review, 85: 857–894. 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: 92–124. Google Scholar
  • Beckman, C. M., Schoonhoven, C. B., Rottner, R. M., & Kim, S. J. 2014. Relational pluralism in de novo organizations: Boards of directors as bridges or barriers to diverse alliance portfolios? Academy of Management Journal, 57: 460–483.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bengtsson, M., & Raza-Ullah, T. 2016. A systematic review of research on coopetition: Toward a multilevel understanding. Industrial Marketing Management, 57: 23–39. Google Scholar
  • Bensaou, B. M., Galunic, C., & Jonczyk-Sédès, C. 2014. Players and purists: Networking strategies and agency of service professionals. Organization Science, 25: 29–56. Google Scholar
  • Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. 2011. On network theory. Organization Science, 22: 1168–1181. Google Scholar
  • Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. 1998. Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23: 14–31.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Breiger, R. L. 1974. The duality of persons and groups. Social Forces, 53: 181–190. Google Scholar
  • Brennecke, J. 2020. Dissonant ties in intraorganizational networks: Why individuals seek problem-solving assistance from difficult colleagues. Academy of Management Journal, 63: 743–778.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Brennecke, J., Ertug, G., & Elfring, T. 2022. Networking fast and slow: The role of speed in tie formation. Journal of Management. Forthcoming. Google Scholar
  • Brennecke, J., & Rank, O. N. 2016. The interplay between formal project memberships and informal advice seeking in knowledge-intensive firms: A multilevel network approach. Social Networks, 44: 307–318. Google Scholar
  • Broekhuizen, T. L., & Zhu, T. 2021. Market orientation and innovation behaviour: How do service employees benefit from their uniplex and multiplex intrafirm network centrality? Industry and Innovation, 28: 1270–1297. Google Scholar
  • Burt, R. S. 1980. Actor interests in a social topology: Foundation for a structural theory of action. Sociological Inquiry, 50: 107–132. Google Scholar
  • Burt, R. S. 1982. Toward a structural theory of action. New York, NY: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  • Burt, R. S. 1986. Comment . In S. LindenbergJ. S. ColemanS. Novak (Eds.), Approaches to social theory: 105–107. New York, NY: Russell Sage. Google Scholar
  • Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  • Burt, R. S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 339–366. Google Scholar
  • Burt, R. S., & Merluzzi, J. 2016. Network oscillation. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2: 368–391.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Burt, R. S., & Ronchi, D. 1990. Contested control in a large manufacturing plant . In J. WeesieH. D. Flap (Eds.), Social networks through time: 127–157. Utrecht, Netherlands: Isor. Google Scholar
  • Byron, K., & Landis, B. 2020. Relational misperceptions in the workplace: New frontiers and challenges. Organization Science, 31: 223–242. Google Scholar
  • Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. 2015. Affective primacy in intraorganizational task networks. Organization Science, 26: 373–389. Google Scholar
  • Chen, H., Mehra, A., Tasselli, S., & Borgatti, S. P. 2022. Network dynamics and organizations: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 48: 1602–1660. Google Scholar
  • Clarke, R., Richter, A. W., & Kilduff, M. 2022. One tie to capture advice and friendship: Leader multiplex centrality effects on team performance change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107: 968–986. Google Scholar
  • Corbo, L., Corrado, R., & Ferriani, S. 2016. A new order of things: Network mechanisms of field evolution in the aftermath of an exogenous shock. Organization Studies, 37: 323–348. Google Scholar
  • Cotton, R. D., Shen, Y., & Livne-Tarandach, R. 2011. On becoming extraordinary: The content and structure of the developmental networks of Major League Baseball Hall of Famers. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 15–46.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Craig, L., & Kuykendall, L. 2019. Examining the role of friendship for employee well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115: 103313. Google Scholar
  • Dahlander, L., & McFarland, D. A. 2013. Ties that last: Tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 69–110. Google Scholar
  • Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31: 659–669.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. 2007. A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10: 5–34. Google Scholar
  • Ellwardt, L., Steglich, C., & Wittek, R. 2012. The co-evolution of gossip and friendship in workplace social networks. Social Networks, 34: 623–633. Google Scholar
  • Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. 1994. Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology, 99: 1411–1454. Google Scholar
  • Ertug, G., Brennecke, J., Kovács, B., & Zou, T. 2022. What does homophily do? A review of the consequences of homophily. Academy of Management Annals, 16: 38–69.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ertug, G., Gargiulo, M., Galunic, C., & Zou, T. 2018. Homophily and individual performance. Organization Science, 29: 912–930. Google Scholar
  • Ertug, G., Kotha, R., & Hedström, P. 2020. Kin ties and the performance of new firms: A structural approach. Academy of Management Journal, 63: 1893–1922.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Fang, R., Landis, B., Zhang, Z., Anderson, M. H., Shaw, J. D., & Kilduff, M. 2015. Integrating personality and social networks: A meta-analysis of personality, network position, and work outcomes in organizations. Organization Science, 26: 1243–1260. Google Scholar
  • Ferriani, S., Fonti, F., & Corrado, R. 2013. The social and economic bases of network multiplexity: Exploring the emergence of multiplex ties. Strategic Organization, 11: 7–34. Google Scholar
  • Freeman, L. C., Roeder, D., & Mulholland, R. R. 1979. Centrality in social networks: II. Experimental results. Social Networks, 2: 119–141. Google Scholar
  • Gao, R., Sun, P., Grosman, A., & Okhmatovsky, I. 2021. Corporate political ties and state capitalism . In M. WrightG. T. WoodA. Cuervo-CazurraP. SunI. OkhmatovskyA. Grosman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of state capitalism and the firm: 524–542. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Gargiulo, M., & Ertug, G. 2006. The dark side of trust . In R. BachmannA. Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook of trust research: 165–186. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
  • Gargiulo, M., Ertug, G., & Galunic, C. 2009. The two faces of control: Network closure and individual performance among knowledge workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54: 299–333. Google Scholar
  • Ghosh, R., & Nadkarni, S. 2022. Navigating tensions in rendering both career and psychosocial functions: An exploratory study of hybrid multiplex developmental relationships. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 33: 69–93. Google Scholar
  • Gluckman, M. 1962. Les rites de passage . In M. Gluckman (Ed.), Essays on the ritual of social relations: 1–52. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press. Google Scholar
  • Gómez-Solórzano, M., Tortoriello, M., & Soda, G. 2019. Instrumental and affective ties within the laboratory: The impact of informal cliques on innovative productivity. Strategic Management Journal, 40: 1593–1609. Google Scholar
  • Gould, R. V. 1991. Multiple networks and mobilization in the Paris Commune, 1871. American Sociological Review, 56: 716–729. Google Scholar
  • Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360–1380. Google Scholar
  • Granovetter, M. S. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481–510. Google Scholar
  • Gross, E., & Stone, G. P. 1964. Embarrassment and the analysis of role requirements. American Journal of Sociology, 70: 1–15. Google Scholar
  • Grossman, E. B., Yli-Renko, H., & Janakiraman, R. 2012. Resource search, interpersonal similarity, and network tie valuation in nascent entrepreneurs’ emerging networks. Journal of Management, 38: 1760–1787. Google Scholar
  • Gulati, R., & Westphal, J. D. 1999. Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO–board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 473–506. Google Scholar
  • Hallen, B. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2012. Catalyzing strategies and efficient tie formation: How entrepreneurial firms obtain investment ties. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 35–70.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hallen, B. L., Katila, R., & Rosenberger, J. D. 2014. How do social defenses work? A resource-dependence lens on technology ventures, venture capital investors, and corporate relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1078–1101.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Han, J., Shipilov, A. V., & Greve, H. R. 2017. Unequal bedfellows: Gender role-based deference in multiplex ties between Korean business groups. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1531–1553.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hayton, J. C., Carnabuci, G., & Eisenberger, R. 2012. With a little help from my colleagues: A social embeddedness approach to perceived organizational support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33: 235–249. Google Scholar
  • Heider, F. 1958. The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Google Scholar
  • Ho, V. T., & Levesque, L. L. 2005. With a little help from my friends (and substitutes): Social referents and influence in psychological contract fulfillment. Organization Science, 16: 275–289. Google Scholar
  • Hood, A. C., Cruz, K. S., & Bachrach, D. G. 2017. Conflicts with friends: A multiplex view of friendship and conflict and its association with performance in teams. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32: 73–86. Google Scholar
  • Ibarra, H. 1993. Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18: 56–87.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ingram, P., & Roberts, P. W. 2000. Friendships among competitors in the Sydney hotel industry. American Journal of Sociology, 106: 387–423. Google Scholar
  • Kapferer, B. 1969. Norms and the manipulation of relationships in a work context . In J. C. Mitchell (Ed.), Social networks in urban situations: 181–240. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press. Google Scholar
  • Kim, T. Y., Oh, H., & Swaminathan, A. 2006. Framing interorganizational network change: A network inertia perspective. Academy of Management Review, 31: 704–720.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kleinbaum, A. M., Jordan, A. H., & Audia, P. G. 2015. An altercentric perspective on the origins of brokerage in social networks: How perceived empathy moderates the self-monitoring effect. Organization Science, 26: 1226–1242. Google Scholar
  • Kleinbaum, A. M., & Stuart, T. E. 2014. Inside the black box of the corporate staff: Social networks and the implementation of corporate strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 35: 24–47. Google Scholar
  • Knoben, J., & Bakker, R. M. 2019. The guppy and the whale: Relational pluralism and start-ups’ expropriation dilemma in partnership formation. Journal of Business Venturing, 34: 103–121. Google Scholar
  • Koy, A., & Yeo, G. 2008. BIS sensitivity, negative affect and performance: Dynamic and multilevel relationships. Human Performance, 21: 198–225. Google Scholar
  • Krackhardt, D., & Kilduff, M. 1990. Friendship patterns and culture: The control of organizational diversity. American Anthropologist, 92: 142–154. Google Scholar
  • Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. 1985. Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28: 110–132.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kuhn, T. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed., with postscript). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  • Kuwabara, K., Luo, J., & Sheldon, O. 2010. Multiplex exchange relations . In S. R. ThyeE. J. Lawler (Eds.), Advances in group processes, vol. 27: 239–268. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald. Google Scholar
  • Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. 2006. Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31: 596–614.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Landis, B., Kilduff, M., Menges, J. I., & Kilduff, G. J. 2018. The paradox of agency: Feeling powerful reduces brokerage opportunity recognition yet increases willingness to broker. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103: 929–938. Google Scholar
  • Lazar, M., Miron-Spektor, E., Agarwal, R., Erez, M., Goldfarb, B., & Chen, G. 2020. Entrepreneurial team formation. Academy of Management Annals, 14: 29–59.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Lee, A., Thomas, G., Martin, R., & Guillaume, Y. 2019. Leader–member exchange (LMX) ambivalence and task performance: The cross-domain buffering role of social support. Journal of Management, 45: 1927–1957. Google Scholar
  • LePine, J. A., Methot, J. R., Crawford, E. R., & Buckman, B. R. 2012. A model of positive relationships in teams: The role of instrumental, friendship, and multiplex social network ties. In L. T. d. T. Eby & T. D. Allen (Eds.), Personal relationships: The effect on employee attitudes, behavior, and well-being: 173–194. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar
  • Li, J. B., & Piezunka, H. 2020. The uniplex third: Enabling single-domain role transitions in multiplex relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65: 314–358. Google Scholar
  • Liao, T. F., Bolano, D., Brzinsky-Fay, C., Cornwell, B., Fasang, A. E., Helske, S., Piccarreta, R., Raab, M., Ritschard, G., Struffolino, E., & Studer, M. 2022. Sequence analysis: Its past, present, and future. Social Science Research, 107: art. 102772. Google Scholar
  • Lincoln, J. R., & Miller, J. 1979. Work and friendship ties in organizations: A comparative analysis of relational networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 181–199. Google Scholar
  • Lizardo, O., & Collett, J. L. 2013. Embarrassment and social organization: A multiple identities model. Social Forces, 92: 353–375. Google Scholar
  • Lopez-Kidwell, V., Niven, K., & Labianca, G. 2018. Predicting workplace relational dynamics using an affective model of relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39: 1129–1141. Google Scholar
  • Mahmood, I. P., Zhu, H., & Zajac, E. J. 2011. Where can capabilities come from? Network ties and capability acquisition in business groups. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 820–848. Google Scholar
  • Maoret, M., Tortoriello, M., & Iubatti, D. 2020. Big fish, big pond? The joint effect of formal and informal core/periphery positions on the generation of incremental innovations. Organization Science, 31: 1538–1559. Google Scholar
  • Marineau, J. E., Hood, A. C., & Labianca, G. 2018. Multiplex conflict: Examining the effects of overlapping task and relationship conflict on advice seeking in organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33: 595–610. Google Scholar
  • Marsden, P. 1981. Introducing influence processes into a system of collective decisions. American Journal of Sociology, 86: 1203–1235. Google Scholar
  • McAllister, D. J. 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 24–59.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • McDermott, G. A., Corredoira, R. A., & Kruse, G. 2009. Public-private institutions as catalysts of upgrading in emerging market societies. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 1270–1296.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • McEvily, B., Soda, G., & Tortoriello, M. 2014. More formally: Rediscovering the missing link between formal organization and informal social structure. Academy of Management Annals, 8: 299–345.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • McFadyen, M. A., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. 2004. Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 735–746.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Mellahi, K., Frynas, J. G., Sun, P., & Siegel, D. 2016. A review of the nonmarket strategy literature: Toward a multi-theoretical integration. Journal of Management, 42: 143–173. Google Scholar
  • Methot, J. R., & Cole, M. S. 2023. Unpacking the microdynamics of multiplex peer developmental relationships: A mutuality perspective. Journal of Management, 49: 606–639. Google Scholar
  • Methot, J. R., LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Christian, J. S. 2016. Are workplace friendships a mixed blessing? Exploring tradeoffs of multiplex relationships and their associations with job performance. Personnel Psychology, 69: 311–355. Google Scholar
  • Methot, J. R., Melwani, S., & Rothman, N. B. 2017. The space between us: A social-functional emotions view of ambivalent and indifferent workplace relationships. Journal of Management, 43: 1789–1819. Google Scholar
  • Methot, J. R., & Rosado-Solomon, E. 2020. Multiplex relationships in organizations: Applying an ambivalence lens . In K. D. J. BrassS. P. Borgatti (Eds.), Social networks at work: 79–103. Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge. Google Scholar
  • Moody, J., McFarland, D., & Bender-deMoll, S. 2005. Dynamic network visualization. American Journal of Sociology, 110: 1206–1241. Google Scholar
  • Moreno, J. L. 1934. Who shall survive?: A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. New York, NY: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company. Google Scholar
  • Nelson, J. L. 2019. How organizational minorities form and use social ties: Evidence from teachers in majority-White and majority-Black schools. American Journal of Sociology, 125: 382–430. Google Scholar
  • Newbert, S. L., & Tornikoski, E. T. 2012. Supporter networks and network growth: A contingency model of organizational emergence. Small Business Economics, 39: 141–159. Google Scholar
  • Newbert, S. L., Tornikoski, E. T., & Quigley, N. R. 2013. Exploring the evolution of supporter networks in the creation of new organizations. Journal of Business Venturing, 28: 281–298. Google Scholar
  • Nygaard, A., & Dahlstrom, R. 2002. Role stress and effectiveness in horizontal alliances. Journal of Marketing, 66: 61–82. Google Scholar
  • Obstfeld, D., Borgatti, S., & Davis, J. 2014. Brokerage as a process: Decoupling third party action from social network structure . In D. J. BrassG. LabiancaA. MehraD. S. HalginS. P. Borgatti (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, vol. 40: 135–159. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald. Google Scholar
  • Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. 2006. Blurring boundaries: Correlates of integration and segmentation between work and nonwork. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68: 432–445. Google Scholar
  • Operti, E. Y., Lampronti, S., & Sgourev, S. V. 2020. Hold your horses: Temporal multiplexity and conflict moderation in the Palio di Siena (1743–2010). Organization Science, 31: 85–102. Google Scholar
  • Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. K. 1993. Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98: 1259–1319. Google Scholar
  • Park, S., Mathieu, J. E., & Grosser, T. J. 2020. A network conceptualization of team conflict. Academy of Management Review, 45: 352–375.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Parsons, T. 1937. The structure of social action. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original work published 1968.) Google Scholar
  • Pillemer, J., & Rothbard, N. P. 2018. Friends without benefits: Understanding the dark sides of workplace friendship. Academy of Management Review, 43: 635–660.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Powell, W. W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W., & Owen-Smith, J. 2005. Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 110: 1132–1205. Google Scholar
  • Pratt, M. G., & Doucet, L. 2000. Ambivalent feelings in organizational relationships . In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (2nd ed.): 204–226. London, U.K.: SAGE. Google Scholar
  • Puranam, P. 2018. The microstructure of organizations. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Puranam, P., Raveendran, M., & Knudsen, T. 2012. Organization design: The epistemic interdependence perspective. Academy of Management Review, 37: 419–440. Google Scholar
  • Quintane, E., & Carnabuci, G. 2016. How do brokers broker? Tertius gaudens, tertius iungens, and the temporality of structural holes. Organization Science, 27: 1343–1360. Google Scholar
  • Raffaelli, R., & Glynn, M. A. 2014. Turnkey or tailored? Relational pluralism, institutional complexity, and the organizational adoption of more or less customized practices. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 541–562.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. 2014. The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43: 189–198. Google Scholar
  • Rider, C. I. 2012. How employees’ prior affiliations constrain organizational network change: A study of U.S. venture capital and private equity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57: 453–483. Google Scholar
  • Rogan, M. 2014. Executive departures without client losses: The role of multiplex ties in exchange partner retention. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 563–584.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Rosenkopf, L., Metiu, A., & George, V. P. 2001. From the bottom up? Technical committee activity and alliance formation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 748–772. Google Scholar
  • Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. 2000. Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 369–386. Google Scholar
  • Runge, S., Schwens, C., & Schulz, M. 2022. The invention performance implications of coopetition: How technological, geographical, and product market overlaps shape learning and competitive tension in R&D alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 43: 266–294. Google Scholar
  • Sasovova, Z., Mehra, A., Borgatti, S. P., & Schippers, M. C. 2010. Network churn: The effects of self-monitoring personality on brokerage dynamics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 639–670. Google Scholar
  • Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. 2016. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10: 5–64.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. 2018. Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 12: 390–439.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Schinoff, B. S., Ashforth, B. E., & Corley, K. G. 2020. Virtually (in)separable: The centrality of relational cadence in the formation of virtual multiplex relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 63: 1395–1424.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Shah, N. P., Parker, A., & Waldstrøm, C. 2017. Examining the overlap: Individual performance benefits of multiplex relationships. Management Communication Quarterly, 31: 5–38. Google Scholar
  • Shipilov, A., Gulati, R., Kilduff, M., Li, S., & Tsai, W. 2014. Relational pluralism within and between organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 449–459.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Shipilov, A. V., & Li, S. X. 2012. The missing link: The effect of customers on the formation of relationships among producers in the multiplex triads. Organization Science, 23: 472–491. Google Scholar
  • Simpson, C. R. 2015. Multiplexity and strategic alliances: The relational embeddedness of coalitions in social movement organisational fields. Social Networks, 42: 42–59. Google Scholar
  • Slot, J. H., Wuyts, S., & Geyskens, I. 2020. Buyer participation in outsourced new product development projects: The role of relationship multiplexity. Journal of Operations Management, 66: 578–612. Google Scholar
  • Smith, E. B., Brands, R. A., Brashears, M. E., & Kleinbaum, A. M. 2020. Social networks and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 46: 159–174. Google Scholar
  • Soltis, S. M., Agneessens, F., Sasovova, Z., & Labianca, G. 2013. A social network perspective on turnover intentions: The role of distributive justice and social support. Human Resource Management, 52: 561–584. Google Scholar
  • Song, Y., Fang, Y., Wang, M., & Shi, J. 2020. A multiplex view of leadership structure in management teams. Personnel Psychology, 73: 615–640. Google Scholar
  • Stan, M., & Puranam, P. 2017. Organizational adaptation to interdependence shifts: The role of integrator structures. Strategic Management Journal, 38: 1041–1061. 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: 249–279.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Tasselli, S., & Kilduff, M. 2018. When brokerage between friendship cliques endangers trust: A personality–network fit perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 802–825.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Tasselli, S., & Kilduff, M. 2021. Network agency. Academy of Management Annals, 15: 68–110.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Tasselli, S., Kilduff, M., & Menges, J. I. 2015. The microfoundations of organizational social networks: A review and an agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 41: 1361–1387. Google Scholar
  • Tasselli, S., & Sancino, A. 2023. Leaders’ networking behaviours in a time of crisis: A qualitative study on the frontline against COVID‐19. Journal of Management Studies, 60: 120–173. Google Scholar
  • Tasselli, S., Zappa, P., & Lomi, A. 2020. Bridging cultural holes in organizations: The dynamic structure of social networks and organizational vocabularies within and across subunits. Organization Science, 31: 1292–1312. Google Scholar
  • Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
  • Torlò, V. J., & Lomi, A. 2017. The network dynamics of status: Assimilation and selection. Social Forces, 96: 389–422. Google Scholar
  • Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. 1978. Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3: 613–624.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61: 674–698. Google Scholar
  • Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 37–69. Google Scholar
  • Valcour, P. M. 2002. Managerial behavior in a multiplex role system. Human Relations, 55: 1163–1188. Google Scholar
  • van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. 2007. Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 515–541. Google Scholar
  • Verbrugge, L. M. 1979. Multiplexity in adult friendships. Social Forces, 57: 1286–1309. Google Scholar
  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  • Watts, D. J. 2011. Everything is obvious: Once you know the answer. London, U.K.: Atlantic Books. Google Scholar
  • Wheeldon, P. D. 1969. The operation of voluntary associations and personal networks in the political processes of an inter-ethnic community . In J. D. Mitchell (Ed.), Social networks in urban situations: 128–180. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press. Google Scholar
  • White, H. C., Boorman, S. A., & Breiger, R. L. 1976. Social structure from multiple networks: I. Block models of roles and positions. American Journal of Sociology, 81: 730–780. Google Scholar
  • Williamson, O. 1975. Markets and hierarchies. New York, NY: Free Press. Google Scholar
  • Withers, M., Kim, J. Y. R., & Howard, M. 2018. The evolution of the board interlock network following Sarbanes–Oxley. Social Networks, 52: 56–67. Google Scholar
  • Yan, T., & Dooley, K. J. 2013. Communication intensity, goal congruence, and uncertainty in buyer–supplier new product development. Journal of Operations Management, 31: 523–542. Google Scholar
  • Zerbini, F., & Castaldo, S. 2007. Stay in or get out the Janus? The maintenance of multiplex relationships between buyers and sellers. Industrial Marketing Management, 36: 941–954. Google Scholar
  • Zhang, Y., Sun, J. M., Shaffer, M. A., & Lin, C. H. 2022. High commitment work systems and employee well-being: The roles of workplace friendship and task interdependence. Human Resource Management, 61: 399–421. Google Scholar
Academy of Management
  Academy of Management
  100 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 110
  Valhalla, NY 10595, USA
  Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
  Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900