NETWORK OSCILLATION

The way a network develops over time has implications for the advantage it provides. We find that oscillation between closure and brokerage enhances network advantage. By network oscillation we refer to a period of deep engagement in a group (closure), followed by a period of connecting across groups (brokerage), followed by deep engagement in a group, followed by brokering, and so on. For evidence, we distinguish four dimensions to network volatility (churn, variation, trend, and reversal), measure the dimensions with panel data on a population of bankers, then add the volatility measures to models predicting banker compensation from status and structural hole measures of network advantage. Network volatility is not associated with performance directly or indirectly-but for one exception: reversals indicate a banker oscillating between closure and brokerage, and that oscillation strongly enhances the performance association with network advantage (measured by status or access to structural holes). In fact, network advantage has no association with performance for bankers who maintain stable brokerage or closure. Our evidence is sufficient to support and illustrate performance contingent on network oscillation, but our data are limited. With an eye to future research, we discuss three mechanisms that could be responsible for the oscillation effect. Editor's Comment The paper by Burt and Merluzzi provides important insights into the effects of change in an individual's network structure. Do individuals who experience network changes have better outcomes? This is the intriguing question addressed in the paper. Based on simple logic, a few disparate data points, and a bit of intuition, the authors explore the possibility that four different kinds of network change are important for individual advantage over time. With static network analyses dominating the field, Burt and Merluzzi's attention to change is quite important and energizing. To drive home their ideas and to create a vehicle for unpacking empirical findings, Burt and Merluzzi create a stylized example, starring Cat and Bob. Their example is a brilliant communication tool, as are the rich figures presented in the paper. Empirically, the authors find that oscillation between closure and brokerage in the network structure is crucial for advantage as time unfolds. This finding is interesting and impactful given the common belief that consistently strong brokerage is a key source of individual attainment. Overall, the finding has clear implications for future research, instruction in management-development classrooms, and managerial behavior. C. Chet Miller, Action Editor