CHAPTER 5: CONCEPTUALIZING TRIADIC STRUCTURES
5.3 A framework for the analysis of triadic structures
strategizing. And network positioning is the process which merges strategizing and value creation into one process; it is a matter of creating an advantageous platform to reap future value potentials. Therefore, network positioning is of crucial strategic significance, but it is not a key construct in the strategy literature (Baraldi et al. 2007).
This double nature of position as 1) the point of connection between objective resource and activity interdependencies, and 2) the centre for subjective sense-making and motivation is a key element for the understanding of network dynamics and must be included in a framework for the analysis of triadic relationships.
Summing up, it is possible to distinguish between three dimensions of triadic structures;
interaction, interconnections and positions. Interaction is a well researched phenomenon and a number of well-defined constructs are available for the description. Position is also a well defined dimension of networks. SNA offers generalized constructs for the description of positions, whereas the MAN approach offers a dual perspective which includes objective structural interrelations of resources and activities, but also point to the position as the locus of agency. Interconnections are not well researched, and the present
conceptualizations focus on the effects of interconnections, not how they can have the described effect. As relationships have no agency they cannot influence and affect each other directly. Consequently, interconnections are an actor perceived phenomenon. In order to understand a constellation of interconnections, we must analyze the motivation for the actors’ participation.
The analysis of the dimensions of triadic structures, interconnections, and interconnectedness in particular leads to the following research question:
How to conceptualize actor perceived interconnections in a way which reflect the significance of actor motivation for the understanding of the value potential of a triadic relationship?
This phrasing synthesizes the two questions resulting from the review of the SNA and the MAN approach to business networks.
5.3 A framework for the analysis of triadic structures
(perceived structural interconnection) and the actor dimension, which connects relationships and exercises agency (position).
The straight lines which create the outer frame of the triangle represent the dyadic interactions between intentional actors. The strength of the ties between the actors can be illustrated by the width of the lines. In business triads, ties are assumed to be mutual, but ties which are not mutual can be indicated by the removal of the arrow in one end of the line. Open triadic structures are illustrated by the removal of one of the straight lines.
Interconnections are plotted as curved lines in the triangle and can be further refined by adding value (0/-/+). The circles represent the position of actors.
Position: Actor’sinterpretations, intents and actions
Perceived interconnection
Dyadic interaction process Position: Actor’sinterpretations,
intents and actions
Position: Actor’sinterpretations, intents and actions
Figure 5.3:The basic structure of a triadic network
Triadic structures are intriguing phenomena. Positions and ties combine into a network; a structural phenomenon. At the same time they differ because positions are the property of actors; the only element which possesses agency. So the position and the tie represent interplay of structure and agency. Moreover, the content of ties is interaction, a process.
These processes depend on actions (agency); thus, the triad also illustrates interplay of
process and agency. Finally, the activities performed in ties influence the actors’perception of the interconnections between relationships; interplay of process and perceived structural interconnection. The arguments tend to be circular. However, structure cannot act on its own, although structure facilitates and constrains action. This is a core tenet of the above framework.
The framework is general; i.e. it can be applied for the study of various processes in different types of three actor relationships. It is applicable for open triadic as well as closed triadic constellations. It can be applied for other constellations, e.g. two suppliers and a buyer, and for other processes, e.g. innovation. The issue under study will influence how the framework is contextualized for a specific local context. As pointed out in section 5.2.1 numerous detailed constructs are available for the description and categorization of interaction in relationships. And section 3.2.1 offers a SNA categorization for the
description of positions. But the inclusion of interconnections in the framework demands a way to categorize different constellations of interconnections.
On the basis of the semantic meaning of intermediation and the definition of interconnections, I conceptualize constellations of interconnections as patterns of intermediation. An intermediary is somebody or something acting between others (Oxford English Dictionary), and what an intermediary do, is intermediation. Interconnections are also acting between something; actors and their relationships. Thus, constellations of interconnections illustrate various patterns of intermediation. Figure 5.4 on the following page illustrates five basic patterns of intermediation in a continuum which may include a number of other patterns. The five patterns are defined as:
Brokerage
Initiation / bridging
Mutually strengthening (cohesion)
Flanking
Avoidance
Figure 5.4 : Patterns of intermediation as indicators of interconnections
The brokerage pattern corresponds to Ritter’s (2000) hierarchy effect and resembles the separation and blocking concept in Smith and Laage-Hellman’s (1992) conceptualization.
The initiation pattern reproduces Ritter’s (2000) initiation effect, and the combination and bridging patterns in Smith and Laage-Hellman’s (1992) conceptualization. The mutual strengthening is a variation of the initiation effect which describes collaborative cohesion between all three relationships. Flanking is a variation of Ritter’s (2000) by-pass effect and Smith and Laage-Hellman’s (1992) flanking construct. Finally, avoidance is a replication of Smith and Laage-Hellman’s (1992) concept. Displacement has been excluded from the continuum as the inclusion of a fourth actor transgresses the limits of a triadic structure, defined as three actors and their relationships. The patterns of intermediation are general, and can be applied for various constellations of three actors indiscriminate of their identity and the processes which take place among them.
As pointed out in section 5.2.2, interconnection as an actor perceived phenomenon reflects the actors’ agency, and consequently their motivation, too. This is captured in the patterns of intermediation, which categorize different constellations of interconnections, which are differently motivated. But the link between their motivated action and how these actions facilitate access to the value potential of the triadic structure is not explicit.
The conceptualization of a continuum of patterns of intermediation only offers a partial answer to the question: How can actor perceived interconnections be conceptualized in a way which reflect the significance of actor motivation for the understanding of value potential of a triadic relationship? Consequently, the second part of this question must be further refined and phrased as follows:
What is the link between the value potential of a triadic relationship and the actors’ motivation for participation?