Page 178 -

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORKS AND BOUNDARY-SPANNERS 167

Subsequent work has suggested that networks based on strong ties have greater
capacity in that they can enable the transfer of more tacit forms of knowledge
(Grandori and Soda, 1995; Kreiner and Schultz, 1993; Oliver and Liebeskind,
1998; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994). However, this does not mean that net-
works based on strong ties are always the most effective. For one, strong ties
take longer to evolve and therefore require a bigger investment in time. For
another, as highlighted by Granovetter’s original study, strong tie networks are
more localized and therefore contain more redundant information. Weak ties
are much more likely to be a source of new information. Granovetter termed this
phenomenon ‘the strength of weak ties’. One of the implications of this insight,
subsequently reinforced by further empirical studies, is that weak tie networks
may be much more efficient and effective for the transfer of explicit forms of
knowledge (Hansen, 1999).

Role of boundary-spanners
One of the puzzling features of social networks is termed the ‘small world’ effect.
We will often remark ‘it’s a small world’ when we find that we share a link, such
as a mutual friend or acquaintance, with a complete stranger in a totally differ-
ent part of the world. This effect was given empirical support by a 1960s study
which is said to have found that anyone in the world is connected to anyone
else by only six links between existing social contacts – that is just ‘six degrees of
separation’ (Milgram, 1967).
What is puzzling about the ‘small world’ effect, and why we tend to find it
a bit uncanny when we experience it, is that it flies in the face of our everyday
experience. We know from personal experience, as well as from research, that our
individual networks are generally pretty localized, being based on our job, spatial
proximity and family ties. Their boundaries act as cut-off points in social ties and
information flows which keep different groups more or less separate from each
other. How then can we be linked to people on the far side of the world or in totally
different social groups? The simple answer is that our local networks become con-
nected globally through a small number of links between highly connected people
within each group. These highly connected people have been given a number of
different labels but the easiest way to define what they do is to call them ‘bound-
ary-spanners’ (Allen, 1977). These are people who enjoy membership of different
groups and hence are able to span the boundaries of social networks.
Now, the role of boundary spanners has been widely discussed in research
studies. For example, some studies highlight their importance in developing and
maintaining inter-organizational links (Tushman and Scanlon, 1981). Most orga-
nizations can be analysed in terms of more inward-facing and more outward-facing
groups, and it is often a few key individuals within the latter who are responsible
for many of the links which a firm develops with other organizations.
Boundary-spanners can also be important within the organization in their
ability to manage relationships across internal interfaces, such as between proj-
ect groups, functional departments and divisions. A classic example of their

6/5/09 7:19:35 AM
9780230_522015_09_cha08.indd 167 6/5/09 7:19:35 AM
9780230_522015_09_cha08.indd 167