As with many classics we discuss in this program, Granovetter’s 1973 article, “The Strength of Weak Ties,” introduced whole new ways of thinking about seemingly simple and straightforward topics and changed the direction of research. In this article, Granovetter accomplished this in two areas—interpersonal networks and the connection between “micro” and “macro” levels of analysis.
First, on interpersonal or “social” networks. In the early days of sociology, the strength of a network was correlated to the strength of the connections among its members. And stronger networks were supposed to be the most relevant building block of social life—and thus the main object of analysis for social scientists. Granovetter turned this idea around and explained how “weak” ties—connections between certain individuals among different networks that were exercised only occasionally—could serve as powerful bridges. Thus, they provide a network’s members with opportunities that might otherwise not be available and generate resilience into networks that might not otherwise respond well to external pressures. Drawn from several examples from previous research, such as Rogers’ (1962) and Milgram’s (1967) diffusion studies, Granovetter shows the role of weak ties operating as bridges as individuals sitting at the margins of a group were postured to either bring in or spread ideas better than a group’s core members. In the process, he shows how attending to such dynamics allows us to better explain the way the job market, social mobility, and the spread of new ideas function.
On the second level, Granovetter uses the discussion of weak ties to advance our understanding of the connection between “micro” and “macro” levels of analysis given the shortcomings faced by social research to “relate micro-level interactions to macro-level patterns in any convincing way” (p. 1360). Granovetter, then, demonstrates the need for theory development at a meso level of analysis and shows how network analysis can help us examine social dynamics across levels of analysis. This idea is illustrated through re-analysis of previous research on the role of interpersonal ties and networks in generating (or not) collective action—such as Gans’ (1982) study about Italian communities in Boston’s West End.
Networks has since grown into a significant field of study and weak ties and their bridging role has help us better understand a number of organization and management topics such as knowledge sharing, innovation, and careers. it is a topic that also appear all the more important given the changes wrought by the rapid emergence of social media platforms, globalization, and the disruptions to daily life from the COVID-19 pandemic which is re-configuring the fabric of our social ties.
Read with us:
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
To Learn More:
Aral, S. (2016). The future of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 121(6), 1931-1939.
Brown, D. W., & Konrad, A. M. (2001). Granovetter was right: The importance of weak ties to a contemporary job search. Group & Organization Management, 26(4), 434-462.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American journal of sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
Gans, H. J. (1982). Urban villagers. Simon and Schuster.
Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today, 2(1), 60-67.
Rogers, Everett M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations (1st ed.). New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Other Talking About Organizations Podcast episodes referenced:
Episode 18. Gig Economy, Labor Relations, and Algorithmic Management
Episode 34. Sociotechnical Systems — Trist and Bamforth
Episode 40. Symposium on the Gig Economy LIVE
Episode 61. Power and Influence in Organizations — Dan Brass
Episode 73. Organizing Innovation — Michael Tushman
Title Image Credit: Clarisse Croset via Unsplash.com
