'<m
HD28
.M414
TO,
Hol-
ALFRED
P.
WORKING PAPER
SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
The Effect of Interoffice Network Structure on
Individual Experience of Problems
Gordon Walker
September, 1985
WP #1701-85
MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
50 MEMORIAL DRIVE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
'The Effect of Interoffice Network Structure on
Individual Experience of Problems
Gordon Walker
September, 1985
WP //1701-85
1 ^•
-<-•
s
ABSTRACT
The present etur?y examines the effect of an interoffice
network
on
the
quantity
quality
and
communications
demonstrated that office
problems which
The network is composed
offices in the network receive.
interoffice
of
and
position
problem
in
referrals.
th^^
network
It
has
of
i
a
primary effect on problems received and that the location of
the position in
the
network
structure
a
lesser
effect.
Also, the results show the advantage of viewing structure in
network terms.
The recent spate of interest in network approaches
organizations
has
frequently
been
criticized
technical than by substantive issues.
metaphor,
network
the
that
(Coleman,
to
the
being
as
study
driven more by
One reason for this response may
be
which is essentially relational in character
is often used to explain differences in individual,
1959),
of
group
or organizational attributes, and the connection in theory between specific
relational and attributional phenomena is unconvincing
study
relatively
a
unexamined
nature in organizations,
approached
from
a
but
pervasive phenomenon of
arrival
the
network
of
problem
a
perspective.
interoffice referrals and communications in
explain
the
In
,
The
an
network
relational
a
office,
is
structure
of
used
to
an
at
present
organization
is
differences in the quantity and quality of problems encountered by
office members.
A major assumption of the present study is that the number of problems
received
by
an
office
and the appropriateness of these problems for the
office should be determined by the amount and quality
about
the
office
available
in
study
i s
information
the
the problem source no matter whether the
source lies inside or outside the interoffice system.
present
of
The
focus
of
the
on the effect of the interoffice system on the number and
quality of problems an office encounters.
The quality of a problem here means the extent to which an
estimates
that
the problem can be solved by his/her office.
may be confronted with few
unsolvable
with
are, however,
success
problems
current means;
but
those
they
get
individual
Some offices
are
virtually
other offices may get many problems which
relatively easy to solve.
Since
the
skills
necessary
for
in problem solving are maintained by obtaining a sufficient number
Page
of appropriate problems, the quality and quantity of problems
office
members
relevant
is
received
by
for their performance and the performance of
In the present study the interoffice network is
their office.
2
assumed
to
be the means by which appropriate problems are acquired.
In a recent review of network models in sociology Burt (1980) makes
between
distinction
(not
types of network approach and levels of analysis (see
He identifies two types of approach:
Table 1).
a
positional and
relational
to be confused with the general relational approach, mentioned above,
apparent in all network
studies)
.
The
present
interoffice network of an organization from
concerned with this
network
as
a
a
approaches
study
the
positional perspective and is
structured
The
system.
composed in this study of two types of relations:
network
is
interoffice communicaton
and problem referral.
Intraorganizational communication networks have been studied in
of
relationship
their
Tushman, 1978;
level
from
theory.
a
group
effectiveness (Tushman, 1977;
O'Reilly and Roberts, 1977), primarily
and
Jacobsen
communication
examines
research
examined
(1977)
network,
individuals who linked different groups.
present
the
at
Katz and
individual
relational persective consistent with information processing
Schwartz
interpersonal
to
terms
focusing
the
on
structure
the
of
an
attributes
of
In contrast to these
interoffice
as
opposed
to
studies, the
interpersonal
communications and is concerned with grouping offices on the basis
of
similarity of their relationships with other offices in the network.
of offices which are similar in their relationships should know
be
known
by
other
distribution, such
a
offices
similarly;
given
the
A set
about
and
this kind of information
set of offices should receive problems
comparable
in
Page
3
as
a
their quantity and quality.
Intraorganizational
referral
networks
have
been
proposed
coordination mechanism in Galbraith's (1974) information processing view of
organization design;
problem
solvers
in
hierarchical
over
conflict
research no assumption is made
between
offices
other
than
office has done all it can to
Referral
relationships
referral
being
potential
about
the
the
solutions.
reasons
for
resort
last
for
In the present
problem
referral
the rather simple premise that the referring
solve
between
problem
a
offices
number of problems offices receive.
by
and
passing
is
on.
it
definition contribute to the
Offices which
have
referral
similar
relationships with other offices in the network should receive
a
comparable
number of problems.
A second major assumption of the present study is that
are
offices
which
classified together according to the similarity of their communication
and referral relationships with other offices will receive a similar number
of problems of comparable quality.
The structure of communications and referrals between sets of
corresponds
offices
to the structured system of subgroups in Burt's typology.
The
third major assumption of the present study is that sets of offices in this
structure will have relationships with each other of unequal intensity;
effect,
this
implies
that
sets
of
offices
which
have
more
in
intense
relationships with other offices should receive more and better referrals.
From the assumptions stated above the following
made:
propositions
can
be
Page
There will be differences in the number and
1.
different
members
organizational
by
encountered
according
sets
problems
of
whose offices are classified into
similarity
the
to
quality
4
their
of
interoffice
communications and referral relationships.
The last assumption of the present research concerns the
vary in their degree of access to
interoffice
system
and
high degree of access
have
offices
distance from
structure
low
problems
which
originate
outside
the
that sets of offices which contain offices with
encounter
should
access.
high
should
of
offices in the network:it is assumed that offices will
of
sets
different
location
addition,
In
access
more
offices
sets
the
in
problems
than
sets
whose
offices located at
of
communication
a
a
referral
and
encounter few problems of relatively poor quality.
This
assumption leads to the following proposition:
There will be differences in the quality and quantity of
2.
encountered
by
members
organizational
problems
whose offices belong to different
sets which are in different locations in the
communications
and
referral
and
kind
structure.
The influence of the interoffice network on the
problems
encountered
by
office
members
should
individual and situational characteristics.
member
has
of
other
offices
and
of
number
of
be moderated by several
First, the knowledge an office
his/her/
own office and official
position should affect the perception of the quality of the referral.
Such
knowledge would naturally increase the longer an individual was employed by
the organization or in
associated
with
a
particular office or
achievement
may
position.
Informal
status
also increase an individual's access to
information about the organization through contact with
members
of
other
.
Page
Second, the general position of an office member within an office
offices.
quality
should affect the number and
receive
should
5
problems
fewer
than
of
problems
his
encountered:
deputy,
problems
should
likewise
increase
his deputy fewer
and
problems than the front-line secretary of receptionist.
boss
a
The difficulty
of
as they are passed up the intra-offce
hierarchy.
A model describing the general relationships between the variables
this study is presented in Table
in
2.
DATA AND METHODS
The data for this study consist of responses to
a
86 members of 42 offices in a large eastern university.
the largest number of
each office responded;
office was six and the smallest number one.
basis of
a
Problems
snowball
which
sample
from
members
encountered
size was 49;
a
single
The offices were chosen on the
sample begun in several offices which were
office
from
Not all members of
respondents
possibly
and
defined as students who arrived at the office with
snowball
questionnaire
a
well-known.
referred were
problem.
The
final
seven of these offices did not complete the
questionnaire
Office members were asked to indicate the number of students who
to
with
them
a
came
problem daily, the percentage of these problems which were
solvable only by the respondent's office, the percentage partially solvable
by
the
respondent's
his/her office.
office, and the percentage totally inappropriate for
Respondents were also asked
to
how
indicate
frequently
students were referred to other offices in the sample, to nominate at least
five offices with which communications were frequent and
degree
of
frequency
of
to
indicate
the
face-to-face, telephone, and memo communications
Page 6
Respondents also provided infonnation
with the offices nominated.
number
their offices and in the university;
they indicated their
and their intra-office position (e.g.
the positional analysis of networks.
commonly
method
used
(Breiger, Boorman and Arabie,
a
approach
general
several reasons:
representing
network
1)
the
members
with
developed above;
subgroup
analysis,
terms of
in
a
a
sets,
construction
blockmodels
of
1979).
As
blockmodel ling was chosen for
structure of interrelated positions,
number of network
offices);
are
the
3)
system
into
blockmodel 1 ing techniques are specifically directed at
networks
consistent
offices
Arabie, Boorman and Levitt,
2)
structural equivalence, behind blockmodels as
is
classify
The classification algorithm used was
for
1^75;
network
to
each position consisting of
case
degree
positions in conformity with the technical literature on
called
a
highest
secretary, assistant administrator).
The first stage of the analysis was to
CONCOR,
the
years and months they had worked in their current positions, in
of
hereafter
on
theoretical
among
positional
the
a
members
(in
present
the
primary principle, called
representation of
perspective
approaches
on
referral
networks
networks
networks
to
at
the
level the technique of blockmodels has the most extensive
and well developed published literature.
Responses regarding interoffice relationships were
the
responses
of
dichotomized,
the members of an office were combined to form
indicator of office to office relationships.
The input to
CONCOR
a
and
single
was
an
array of four stacked binary matrices, one matrix for interoffice referrals
and one for each mode of interoffice communication.
Page
The output from CONCOR is always
input
a
bifurcation of the columns
the
CONCOR was run on the two groups produced by the initial run
array.
and twice more on groups produced by these runs so that in all
sets or positions of offices were derived.
The degree to
is presented in Table 3.
students
refer
of
7
to
communicate
and
six disjoint
The composition of these groups
which
offices
each
in
position
with each other and offices in other
positions is represented in the set of density matrices in Table
The
4a.
blockmodels for these matrices are shoewn in Table 4b.
To test the proposition
encountered
office
by
that
members
number
the
quality
and
whose offices were in different positions
would not be the same, analyses of covariance were run with the
and
students,
problems
of
independent
inappropriate
variables
problems
his/her
of
level
as
dependent
variables.
The
were the position of the respondent's office in the
network, his/her position in the office
and
number
percentage of solvable problems, of partially solvable
the
and
problems
of
of
education
{
polychotomized into three levels),
(polychotomized into five levels).
The
covariates were the total number of months employed in the
university,
the office, and in his/her current position in the office.
The resutlts of
the analyses of covariance are shown in Table
5.
The proposition regarding the effect of the network structure
number
in
on
and quality of problems was tested in a two part procedure.
the
First,
although the blockmodels constucted from the density matrices indicate some
consistency
in
the
structural location of each position, these locations
could not be interpreted precisely enough to lead to
the
second
proposition.
Consequently,
in
order
a
confident testing of
to
determine
positions were structurally similar, each density matrix was appended
which
with
Page 8
its transpose so that the first six columns constituted densites to the six
positions and the last six columns densities from the six
positions.
The
appended matrices were then stacked, and the intercolumn correlation matrix
of the stacked array was
analysis
analysis
interpreted
analysed.
found in Table 6.
are
factor
the
factor
as
a
results
of
positions
location
within
within
these
factor
the
groups
structure.
covariance were then run using the same variables as in Table
the
the
Three groups of positions were taken from
results;
sharing
The
were
Analyses of
5
except that
office positions were replaced by groups of office positions.
Table
7
contains the results of this analysis.
RESULTS
The classification of offices into
easily
interpreted.
offices and
I
student
school
dean's
are
service
functions,
offices.
Financial
across
spread
shown
in
Position II
consists
composed
of
the
plus one residence and
3
primarily
is
of
and Position III of the undergraduate
and
lesser
administrative
Positions II and III.
service
Religious groups and
operational offices of the university constitute Position IV.
is
Table
is composed of three top administrative
powerful dean's office.
a
direct
functions
Position
positions
Position
V
offices which administer residential life on campus,
a
student-run service group, and other undergraduate
residences comprise Position VI.
The analysis of covariance
strikingly
the
influence
results
on
all
four
Table
5
demonstrate
rather
of office position on the number and quality of
problems encountered by office members.
effect
in
Office position has
dependent variables;
a
significant
and only for the perception of
inappropriate problems are the context factors significant.
Page
9
The factor analysis of the stacked, appended density matrices produced
three factors with eigenvalues greater than one, which accounted for 83% of
A Varimax rotation produced factor loadings
the variance.
factor repersents a distinct group of positions.
each
that
off
loading cut
of
factor
positions,
factor
.4,
loading
which
represents
one
fourth,
the
two
three the first position.
single
which
With
second
the
indicate
a
factor
and
third
fifth and sixth positions, and factor
Factors one and three are confounded each
detracts
from
the
otherwise
by
a
perfect interfactor
discrimination.
The results of the analysis of
grouped
according
to
covariance
similarity
the
of
their
structure are slightly different from the ANCOVA
Variation
positions.
in
the
number
of
explained significantly by the groups of
analysis
of
which
in
positions
were
location in the network
results
students
positions.
using
ungrouped
encountered
was not
As
initial
in
the
covariance with the positions ungrouped, no other independent
variable or covariate explains variation in the number
of
students.
The
results for problem quality are similar to those of the ungrouped analysis.
Groups of positions have
solvability
significant effect
of student problems and, to
of partial solvability.
the
a
inappropriateness
a
on
the
perception
the results for
problem are identical to the first analysis.
a
Thus, the number of problems encountered varies significantly among
groups
positions
but
structure.
Problem quality, on
not
among
the
lesser degree, on the perception
In terms of level of significance,
of
of
the
of
positions
other
positions and by groups of positions.
DISCUSSION
hand,
determined
is
by
explained
office
network
both
by
Page 10
In the present study problems are
however,
inembers;
the
constructs
encountered
by
individual
office
proposed as explanators are groups of
offices and groups of groups of offices.
The level of the office itself is
in favor of the network characteristics of offices both in term? of
jumped
an initial clustering of
similarity
of
offices
interoffice
positions on the basis of
into
positions
relationships
the
their
and
on
basis
terms of
in
similarity
the
in
the
of
the
grouping of
a
interpositional
structure.
The results of both classifications were quite interpretable
different
position
However,
the
is
for
The positions constructed in the first classification
reasons.
can be understood in terms of office functions.
onto
but
an
obvious
empirical
virtual
The
mapping
function
of
isomorphism for the present data.
classification
of
offices
according
their
to
communication and referral relationships should not be trivialized in favor
of an
which
a
priori functional understanding of the
the
present
scheme
produces in
organization.
One
result
much richer form than would an
a
a
priori functional approach is the network structure.
of
In the present study positions were grouped in terms of the
similarity
their
degree
structural
location
with
a
relatively
high
discrimination, considering that network relations both given and
by
a
position loaded on the same factor.
types
of relation.
on
the
for
all
A second reason for the coherence of the factors
is the distinct grouping of the positions themselves in the
blockmodels
received
One reason for this result is the
general symmetry of the network structure along the main diagonal
four
of
modes of communication make clear in
separation of the first and last three positions.
In
the
network.
a
The
visual way the
blockmodel
for
Page
group
and three and the
can see the tightly knit group of positions two
one
moreover,
referrals,
11
positions
of
five
and
Apparently,
six.
the
relationships of position one with the other positions on all four types of
relation are
sufficiently
Considering
the
different
membership
of
for
to
it
this
merit
position,
its
such
own
group.
finding
a
is
understandable.
The separation of positions
into
clearcut
such
relative degree of organizational stratification.
groups
suggests
a
The strata, or groups of
positions explain variance in the qualitative aspect of individual referral
experience
but
not
other hand, explain
the
quantitative aspect.
variance
in
both
Unaggregated positions, on
quantitaive
the
qualitative
and
aspectE.~
These results suggest that although an office may change the number of
problems
it
receives by altering its relationships with other offices and
thus altering its position in the interoffice
network, it
is
less
likely
that the quality of problems encountered will change since an alteration of
position does not necessarily mean
a
change in structural location.
CONCLUSION
The present research has focused on an interoffice
referral
network
as distinguished from interpersonal relations.
to most studies using universities as
Salancik,
1977;
non-academic
considered
concerns.
Katz,
offices;
the
communication
result
1979),
the
consequently,
of
organizations
sample
present
the
study
structure
administrative
as
has
presented
opposed
In this regard this study meets in part the need
descriptions of administrative structure as
a
Contrary
(Pfeffer
used
to
and
and
primarily
can
be
professional
for
empirical
set of interrelated offices.
Page 12
As defined in this study problems are students who arrive at an office
with problems the office may or may not be able to solve.
of this definition
however,
it
to
seems
perceptions
likely
of
task
or
job
The relationship
is
not
specified?
that problems defined as an input to an office
would tend to affect perceptions of the office probl em- solving system.
In
this sense the quality and quantity of problems referred mediate the effect
of the interoffice network structure on individual perceptions of task
job
characteristics.
Analogous
types
of
problems
in
and
non-educational
organizations are employee complaints and problems initiated by clients.
Finally, problem referral
dependence
since
without
a
may
be
seen
as
a
type
of
interoffice
place to send what is locally unsolvable, an
administrative unit decreases in value perceived by
perhaps in actual effectiveness as well.
its
constituency
and
t
B50^
U
I
k
CONCEPTS OP NETWORK STKUCTORE WITHIN EACH OF SIX MOPrS
OF NETWORK ANALYSIS (from Burt, 1930)
ACTOR ASGREGATION IN A ONIT OF ANALYSIS
MULYTXCAL APPROACHES
RELATIONAL
PERSONAL
NETWORK AS
EXTENSIVE,
DENSE OR
MULTIPLEX
OCCUPANT
POSITIONAL
MULTIPLE ACTORS
AS A NETWORK
SUBGROUP
MULTIPLE ACTORS/
SUBGROUPS AS A
STRUCTURED
SYSTEM
PRIMARY CROUP
AS A NETWORK
CLIQUE: A SET
OF ACTORS
CONVECTED BY
COHESIVE RELATIONS
SYSTEM STRUCTURE
AS DENSF AND/OR
TRANSITIVE
oa
a.
^
1^
fN
-<
B
<
O
U
D.
^>
o
10
c
<
4-)
a a
o
i
o
h
>
o
u
m
^
ir>
^H
^^
t-i
>>
0\
I
MIT
3
TDfiD
I
ie,RA»!H
003 DSi
7'
u-
'^
l~
OJ
Lib-26-67
hc^
cvdjL ^^
<^ hcuiJ^ cji^^tr~