Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T13:25:12.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where Do Social Ties Come From: Institutional Framework and Governmental Tie Distribution among Chinese Managers

Part of: Guanxi Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Stan Xiao Li ,
Xiaotao Yao ,
Christina Sue-Chan  and
Youmin Xi
Stan Xiao Li
Affiliation:
York University, Canada
Xiaotao Yao
Affiliation:
Xi'an Jiaotong University, China
Christina Sue-Chan
Affiliation:
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Youmin Xi
Affiliation:
Xi'an Jiaotong University, China
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study identifies the societal institutional framework as the cause for the tie distribution issue — the sizes of ego-networks of social actors are unevenly distributed across social categories of these social actors. The analysis of 250 Chinese firms showed that managers employed by state-owned enterprises possess more governmental tie channels – conduits to get acquainted with government officials – than those employed by non-state-owned enterprises. Governmental tie channels completely mediated the relationship between ownership types and the number of government ties in the manager's social network.

Keywords

firm ownershipgovernmental tiesinstitutional frameworksocial tie channelstie possession企业所有制政府关系制度框架社会关系渠道关系拥有
Type
Regular Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 97 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2011

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6): 1173–1182.Google Scholar
Batjargal, B. 2007. Comparative social capital: Networks of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in China and Russia. Management and Organization Review, 3(3): 397–419.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, S. D., & Wellman, B. 1988. Social structures: A network approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bian, Y. 1997. Bringing strong ties back in: Indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China. American Sociological Review, 62(3): 366–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bian, Y. 2002. Social capital of the firm and its impact on performance: A social network analysis. In Tsui, A. S. & Lau, C.-M. (Eds.), The management of enterprises in the People's Republic of China: 275–298. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M., & Schwartz, J. E. 1984. Crosscutting social circles: Testing a macrostructural theory of intergroup relations. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. 1986. Comment. In Lindenberg, S., Coleman, J. S. & Nowak, S. (Eds.), Approaches to social theory: 105–107. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chai, S.-K., & Rhee, M. 2010. Confucian capitalism and the paradox of closure and structural holes in East Asian firms. Management and Organization Review, 6(1): 5–29.Google Scholar
Chen, W. 2007. Does the colour of the cat matter? The red hat strategy in China's private enterprises. Management and Organization Review, 3(1): 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
China National Bureau of Statistics 2009. China statistical yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press.Google Scholar
Davis, L. E., & North, D. C. 1971. Institutional change and American economic growth. Cambridge, UK: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, B. J. 2003. Red capitalists in China: The party, private entrepreneurs, and prospects for political change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doreian, P., & Stokman, F. N. 1997. Evolution of social networks. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Publishers.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. 1994. Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology, 99(6): 1411–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Entwisle, B., Faust, K., Rindfuss, R. R., & Kaneda, T. 2007. Networks and contexts: Variation in the structure of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 112(5): 1495–1533.Google Scholar
Feld, S. L. 1981. The focused organization of social ties. American Journal Of Sociology, 86(5): 1015–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 232–263. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Galaskiewicz, J., & Burt, R. S. 1991. Interorganization contagion in corporate philanthropy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1): 88–105.Google Scholar
Gibbon, D. E. 2004. Friendship and advice networks in the context of changing professional values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2): 238–262.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. L., & Kahl, J. A. 1993. The American class structure: A new synthesis (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, M. S. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guiad, R., & Gargiulo, M. 1999. Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5): 1439–1494.Google Scholar
Hitt, M. A., Ahlstrom, D., Dacin, M. T., Levitas, E., & Svobodina, L. 2004. The institutional effects on strategic alliance partner selection in transition economies: China vs. Russia. Organization Science, 15(2): 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibarra, H. 1993. Personal networks of women and minorities in management – A conceptual-framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1): 56–87.Google Scholar
Kilduflf, M., & Tsai, W. 2003. Social networks and organizations. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Li, D. D. 1998. Changing incentives of the Chinese bureaucracy. American Economic Review, 88(2): 393–397.Google Scholar
Li, S. X., & Rowley, T.J. 2002. Inertia and evaluation mechanisms in interorganizational partner selection: Syndicate formations among U.S. investment banks. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 1104–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, N. 1999. Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 467–487.Google Scholar
Lin, N., Cook, K. S., & Burt, R. S. 2001. Social capital: Theory and research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, P. V. 1993. The reliability of netowrk density and composition measures. Social Networks, 15: 399–421.Google Scholar
Marsden, P. V. 2005. Recent developments in network measurement. In Carrington, P.J., Scott, J. & Wasserman, S. (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis: 8–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 440–463.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. 1967. The small-world problem. Psychology Today, 1: 62–67.Google Scholar
Moore, G. 1990. Structural determinants of men's and women's personal networks. American Sociological Review, 55(5): 726–735.Google Scholar
McPherson, J. M., & Rotolo, T. 1996. Testing a dynamic model of social composition: Diversity and change in voluntary groups. American Sociological Review, 61(2): 179–202.Google Scholar
North, G. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Park, S. H., & Luo, Y. 2001. Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5): 455–477.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portes, A. 1998. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 1–24.Google Scholar
Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. 1993. Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98: 1320–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B. 2004. How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing eifective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1): 101–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renzulli, L. A., & Aldrich, H. 2005. Who can you turn to? Tie activation within core business discussion networks. Social Forces, 84(1): 323–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. 2000. The changing world of Chinese enterprise: An institutional perspective. In Li, J. T., Tsui, A. & Weldon, E. (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context: 59–78. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Silver, A. 1990. Friendship in commercial society: Eighteenth-century social theory and modem sociology. The American Journal of Sociology, 95(6): 1474–1504.Google Scholar
Smith-Doerr, L., & Powell, W. W. 2005. Networks and economic life. In Smelser, N. J. & Swedberg, R. (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology (2nd ed.): 379–402. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stinchcombe, A. L. 1965. Social structure and organizations. In March, J. G. (Ed.), Handbook of organizations: 153–193. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Sun, P., Wright, M., & Mellahi, K. 2010. Is entrepreneur-politician alliance sustainable during transition? The case of management buyouts in China. Management and Organization Review, 6(1): 101–121.Google Scholar
Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effects. American Sociological Review, 61(4): 674–698.Google Scholar
Volker, B., & Flap, H. 1997. The comrades’ belief: Intended and unintended consequences of communism for neighbourhood relations in the former GDR. European Sociological Review, 13(3): 241–265.Google Scholar
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Westphal, J. D., & Milton, L. P. 2000. How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2): 366–398.Google Scholar
White, H. C., Boorman, S. A., & Breiger, R. L. 1974. Social structure from multiple networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions. American Journal of Sociology, 81: 730–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xin, K. R., & Pearce, J. L. 1996. Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6): 1641–1658.Google Scholar
Yang, M. M.-h. 1994. Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Yao, X., Li, S. X., Sue-Chan, C., & Xi, Y. 2009. Structural replacement or structural inducement: Government ties of Chinese business executives. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 26(1): 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., & Keh, H. T. 2010. Interorganizational exchanges in China: Organizational forms and governance mechanisms. Management and Organization Review, 6(1): 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, E. W., & Sgourev, S. V. 2006. Peer capitalism: Parallel relationships in the U.S. economy. American Journal of Sociology, 111(5): 1327–1366.Google Scholar