Simmelian brokerage, tertius iungens orientation, and idea elaboration

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Stefano Tasselli , Hongzhi Chen , Brian R. Dineen
{"title":"Simmelian brokerage, tertius iungens orientation, and idea elaboration","authors":"Stefano Tasselli ,&nbsp;Hongzhi Chen ,&nbsp;Brian R. Dineen","doi":"10.1016/j.respol.2025.105185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In organizations, idea elaboration calls for employees to work with inner-circle coworkers, who may be embedded in separate network cliques. Theories are inconclusive concerning how brokerage position between separate cliques will affect the elaboration and improvement of embryonic ideas. In three studies of R&amp;D scientists and medical professionals in various field settings, we first explored and found that being the sole shared member of separate cliques (i.e., Simmelian brokerage) undermines the quantity and quality of elaborated ideas. To explain this finding, we suggest that the Simmelian brokerage position begets a multi-insider trap: while the idea elaborators benefit from obtaining non-redundant feedback across separate cliques, they also encounter the challenge of selecting, aligning, and integrating potentially conflicting feedback. To investigate a boundary condition, we then explored the role of tertius iungens orientation; i.e., the tendency to bring people together with an inclusive mindset to incorporate divergent perspectives. Prior research suggests that this can reduce both the advantages and disadvantages of brokerage positions. Results show that Simmelian brokerage's detrimental effect is mitigated for people with a higher level of tertius iungens orientation. Overall, this exploratory research identifies a pitfall for innovators who are the sole shared member of separate network cliques, and illuminates who might best navigate such a pitfall.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48466,"journal":{"name":"Research Policy","volume":"54 3","pages":"Article 105185"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733325000149","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In organizations, idea elaboration calls for employees to work with inner-circle coworkers, who may be embedded in separate network cliques. Theories are inconclusive concerning how brokerage position between separate cliques will affect the elaboration and improvement of embryonic ideas. In three studies of R&D scientists and medical professionals in various field settings, we first explored and found that being the sole shared member of separate cliques (i.e., Simmelian brokerage) undermines the quantity and quality of elaborated ideas. To explain this finding, we suggest that the Simmelian brokerage position begets a multi-insider trap: while the idea elaborators benefit from obtaining non-redundant feedback across separate cliques, they also encounter the challenge of selecting, aligning, and integrating potentially conflicting feedback. To investigate a boundary condition, we then explored the role of tertius iungens orientation; i.e., the tendency to bring people together with an inclusive mindset to incorporate divergent perspectives. Prior research suggests that this can reduce both the advantages and disadvantages of brokerage positions. Results show that Simmelian brokerage's detrimental effect is mitigated for people with a higher level of tertius iungens orientation. Overall, this exploratory research identifies a pitfall for innovators who are the sole shared member of separate network cliques, and illuminates who might best navigate such a pitfall.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research Policy
Research Policy MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
6.90%
发文量
182
期刊介绍: Research Policy (RP) articles explore the interaction between innovation, technology, or research, and economic, social, political, and organizational processes, both empirically and theoretically. All RP papers are expected to provide insights with implications for policy or management. Research Policy (RP) is a multidisciplinary journal focused on analyzing, understanding, and effectively addressing the challenges posed by innovation, technology, R&D, and science. This includes activities related to knowledge creation, diffusion, acquisition, and exploitation in the form of new or improved products, processes, or services, across economic, policy, management, organizational, and environmental dimensions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信