O impacto das características estruturais da rede no seu desempenho: um estudo comparativo

Claudio Lira Meirelles; Thais Cereda Ravasi; Fabio Teixeira Arten; João Paulo Lara Siqueira

doi:10.21710/rch.v9i0.128

Authors

Claudio Lira Meirelles
Thais Cereda Ravasi
Fabio Teixeira Arten
João Paulo Lara Siqueira

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21710/rch.v9i0.128

Keywords:

network structure, centrality, performance.

Abstract

This research sought to understand the relationship between the position of the central actor and the performance of a network, checking the influence of the central actor's performance over other actors. Among the specific objectives, we sought to describe the transactional content, the nature of the connections and the structural characteristics of the network. Data were collected through a questionnaire and analyzed with the help of software UCINET 6.0 and Excel. The results suggest that the performance of the actors with the highest levels of centrality is related to the performance of the actors of the 1st step of sub-networks of these central actors.

References

Burt, R.S. 1992. Structural Holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Castells, M. 2000. Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society. British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 5–24.

Christakis, N.A. & Fowler, J.H. 2007. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine: 370–379.

Everett, M. & Borgatti, S.P. 2005. Extending centrality. In: Carrington, P.J.; Scott, J. & Wasserman, S. (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Feld, S.L. 1991. Why your friends have more friends than you do. American Journal of Sociology 96: 1464-1477.

Frye, B.A. 2010. With (III) friends like these: “friendship paradox” predicts spread of disease. Research Roudup.

Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology: 481-510.

Hanneman, R.A. & Riddle, M. 2005. Introduction to Social Network Methods. Universityde California, Riverside.

Jost, J. & Zuckerman, E.W. 2001. What makes you think you're so popular? self-e valuation maintenance and the subjective side of the “friendship paradox”. Social Psychology Quarterly 64(3): 207 – 223.

Kadushin, C. 1995. Friendship among the French financial elite. American Sociological Association 60(2): 202-221.

Mendes-da-Silva, W. 2011. Small Worlds and Board Interlocking in Brazil: A Longitudinal Study of Corporate Networks, 1997-2007. Brazilian Finance Review 4(4): 521-548.

Nohria, N. 1992. Is a network perspective a useful way of studying organizations? In: Nohria, N. & Ecles, R. (Orgs.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Harvard Business School, Boston.

Selnes, F. & Sallis, J. 2003. Promoting Relationship Learning. Journal of Marketing 67. Tichy, N.; Tushman, M. & Fombrun, C. 1979. Social Networks analysis for organizations. Academy of Management Review 4(4): 507-519.

Wilson, M. 2010. Using the friendship paradox to sample a social network: when applied to random nodes in a network, the statement “your friends have more friends that do” has predictive power. Physics today, November.

Woodcock, S. 2010. Moral schizophrenia and the paradox of friendship. Utilitas 22(1):1