CHAPTER 5: CONCEPTUALIZING TRIADIC STRUCTURES
5.2 Interaction, interconnection and position
5.2.2 Interconnection
Interconnection refers to the ways in which relationships affect each other. Based on the analysis of ties, SNA offers structural concepts; structural holes, autonomy and closure which assist the analysis of the outcome of a structure or network. But SNA does not include interconnection as a distinct element of networks. The MAN approach is observant to the existence of interconnections, but the conceptualization of interconnections is not well developed.
The general approach to the study of interconnections is that interaction conditions interconnections. An alternative approach is to argue that interconnection preconditions interaction (Ritter 2000). This thesis takes the approach that interaction and
interconnection are mutually constituting constructs. This is detectable in the analysis of the time dimension which is significant for the definition of the two concepts as either the independent or the dependent variable. Interconnection in a specific triad at a given point in time:
Is affected by prior episodes and relationships preceding the present interaction
Conditions the present interaction
Is affected by the present interaction, which potentially may change the future constellation of interconnections
Being so, the inclusion of the time dimension in the discussion illustrates that interaction influences interconnection and vice-versa.
Ritter (2000) describes constellations of interconnections as interconnectedness. He develops a typology which consists of ten different types of interconnectedness applicable for three party constellations which he defines as triads. These types illustrate that “An inter-organizational relationship can hinder, weaken, strengthen or enforce another relationship” (ibid p. 321). The concept is built on three possible effects of interconnection:
a positive, a negative or a zero influence. The typology for constellations of three actors and three relationships is of specific interest for this study. Four types of
interconnectedness are described for such constellations.
Unitary neutrality effect – no effect of interconnections
Initiation effect – one actor has relationship with two others and initiates direct contact between these two actors
By-pass effect – one of the actors is isolated or left out by two others
Hierarchy effect – one of the actors is able to exclude another one from direct interaction with the third actor
The application of the term “effect”, for the description of various constellations of interconnections, signals that the interconnectedness is not a result of interaction, but influence the context for interaction.
Smith and Laage-Hellman (1992) focus differently. The issue of their study is the transformation patterns resulting from interaction. Their patterns of transformation are easy to identify, and therefore instrumental for an empirical analysis. The typology consists of the following patterns:
Avoidance
Flanking
Combination
Bridging
Displacement
Separation
Blocking
Figure 5.2: Categorization of transformation patterns (Smith, Laage-Hellman 1992) two versions
of by-pass
two versions of separation
Avoidance and flanking are two versions of the by-passing of middlemen, whereas combination and bridging are two versions of bridging activities performed by a middleman (the tertius iungens). Displacement refers to a situation in which one actor substitutes another one in the tie to a third partner. Finally, separation and blocking are concepts which describe how a direct relationship between two parties can be substituted by a brokering relationship (the tertius gaudens).
Smith and Laage-Hellman (1992) and Ritter (2000) differ in two substantial ways: Their applicability to closed triadic structures, and their conceptualization of the interplay of interconnection and interaction. Ritter (2000) offers typologies for the interconnectedness of two relationships, illustrated by an open triadic structure and for the
interconnectedness of three relationships illustrated by a closed triadic structure. In comparison the concepts offered by Smith and Laage-Hellman (1992) all relate to varieties of open triadic structures. They illustrate transitional steps and offer a terminology for the description of the closure of open triadic structures and the change of direct ties into indirect ties. Moreover, Ritter (2000) approaches the study by focusing on the ways in which interconnection influences interaction, whereas Smith and Laage-Hellman (1992) approach the study from the opposite perspective: that interaction results in
interconnection.
Interconnections describe something acting between relationships; the effect of one or more relationship on other relationships. Constellations of interconnection create various patterns of interconnectedness. These patterns are influenced by former interaction and influence future interaction. The two phenomena are separate and distinct, but mutually constitute each other. However, neither Ritter (2000), nor Smith and Laage-Hellman (1992) explains how interconnections can have the described effect. The conceptualization of interconnections as a matter of the ways in which relations affect each other implicitly indicates that ties have agency, which is not the case. They may be interdependent, due to activity links and resource ties, but ties have no agency, only actors have. Agency is a matter of intent, purpose, motives, interpretations and actions.
The phrasing in Ritter (2000) and Smith and Laage-Hellman (1992) points to the
importance of the motivation for a specific constellation of interconnections. Specific
constellations of interconnections have effects; e.g. initiation effects, or by-pass effects,
implying that somebody initiates something or by-pass someone. And the application of
terms like avoidance and flanking indicates that someone has intent of escaping the
involvement of an actor. The interconnectedness of a structure is a result of motivated
action. Interconnections are not structural phenomena. They represent the actors’
interpretation of constellations of interconnection and their resulting motivated actions.
Interconnectedness resides in the minds of the actors; it is an actor perceived phenomenon.
5.2.3 Positions
The position has a double function. It is the connector of objective interrelations. SNA offers specific constructs for the analysis of objective interrelations in a structure, i.e.
centrality, status, and prominence, see section 3.1.2; i.e. The MAN perspective is contextual and localized and focus on resource ties and activity links, which originate in interaction processes (the industrial logic), but it also includes the identity of the partners.
At the same time, the position is of subjective nature. Actors, their intentions and interpretations are situated in the position (Johanson, Mattsson 1992). It is the locus of agency.
The duality of position can be spelled out in more details by distinguishing between position and role (Anderson et al. 1998). 1) Position embraces the expected activities 2) Role describes actors’ intentions, their sense-making of a present situation, and how they want to change it. The actors’ interpretations of their own and the other actors’ positions and roles are primary determinants of their subsequent activities. In order to understand activities, the sense-making must be analyzed.
This implies that the activities we can observe and the emerging structures are results of the combined objective and subjective dimension of position. On the one hand, the position determines the potential resource access offered by a collection of ties (the objective dimension). The resources access facilitates and constrains the activities of a focal actor. On the other hand, position is the locus of the actor and his agency. Interaction processes depend on how the actors perceive and make sense of the network, and how they enact their sense-making in action (Melin 1989). In other words: The interaction process materializes the sense-making.
This sense-making is referred to as the network theory (Johanson, Mattsson 1992), or network pictures (Henneberg, Mouzas & Naudé 2006). Network pictures are significant for strategic action. Strategic action is constrained and facilitated by the market structure and strategic actions by others. The ability to perceive these actions, and subsequently interpret them and react on them, depends on the network horizon; i.e. an organization’s evaluation of the relevance of close and more distant change processes for its own actions (Andersson, Mattsson 2004). This being so, network position is the structural element which links exchange and value creating activities in relationships with the actors’
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?