Governing Network Evolution in the Quest for Identity

This paper provides a managerial account of network governance by exploring how initially non-powerful agents, driven by the quest for distinctive identity, shape the governance of their networks over time. The research design is that of a longitudinal comparative case study of the trajectories of three renowned, Oscar-winning Spanish filmmakers. It scrutinizes data coming from original interviews, as well as from multiple secondary data sources, in order to illustrate the propositions advanced. The paper’s contribution is sought (1) in proposing a micro-level framework for systematic thinking about network governance evolution, distinguishing four dimensions (co-governance, structure, strategy, and pace) and their respective sub-categories; (2) in advancing three peculiar identity profiles with different implications for the evolution of network governance (i.e., a maverick, an integrated professional, and a broker); (3) in bringing together two bodies of literature that have not conversed frequently (i.e., network governance and identity) in a largely overlooked cultural and historical context, that of Spain after the transition to democracy in 1975. GOVERNING NETWORK EVOLUTION IN THE QUEST FOR IDENTITY Huge global conglomerates and small companies are increasingly embracing network forms of governance (Laubacher & Malone, 1999; see also Nohria & Ghoshal (1997) on multinational companies as differentiated networks; Galbraith (2000) on informal and formal global networks; Walker, Kogut, & Shan (1997) and Baum, Calabrese, & Silverman (2000) on biotech startups). Researchers from different perspectives on organizations show a remarkable interest in the study of these network forms. Some have tried to distinguish them from other forms of governance (Powell, 1990; Jones, 1993; Ebers, 1997), or have focused on the social mechanisms through which they operate (e.g., Jones, Hesterly, & Borgatti, 1997; Uzzi, 1997; Ring 1997). Others have inquired into the formation processes, looking at their endogenous and/or exogenous dynamics (e.g., Gulati & Garguilo, 1999; Garcia-Pont & Nohria, 2000; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996), or delineating distinct formation paths (Doz, Olk, & Ring, 2000). Apart from the functionality of networks as governance forms (e.g., learning, legitimacy, status, economic benefits), scholars have increasingly paid attention to networks’ costs (Ebers & Grandori, 1997) and dysfunctionality, such as decay (what Burt (2000) calls the tendency for relationships to weaken and disappear), demise and failure (e.g., Ariño & de la Torre, 1998; Podolny & Page, 1998; Human & Provan, 2000). While various studies have addressed diverse evolutionary issues (e.g., Human & Provan 2000, Doz et al. 2000, Gulati & Garguilo 1999), they have traced networks’ evolution rather than the evolution of the governance of these networks, and have predominantly provided macro-insights (at the organizational and inter-organizational levels of analysis). Networks, however, are not a standard organizational solution, and hence, require permanent management attention and action (Ebers & Grandori, 1997). In addition, inter-organizational relations are embodied (and embedded) in interpersonal bonds between managers and employees from different enterprises. Therefore, apart from providing increased understanding of network phenomena, network theory should speak to the concerns of the managers who govern these complex organizational arrangements (Kanter & Eccles, 1992). This paper provides such a managerial account of network governance by exploring how initially non-powerful agents in a field, driven by the quest for a distinctive identity, shape the governance of their networks over time. Identity is depicted on a micro level, focusing on two parameters – social (represented by the concept of role versatility) and personal (captured by the notion of style). Underlying assumption is that action is capable of influencing social structure (e.g., Padgett & Ansell, 1993; Weick, 1996; Alvarez, 2000), and that the social organization arises from identity formation out of control efforts (White, 1992). The study is situated within the context of a unique inter-organizational field, the Spanish film industry in the last 25 years and, similar to Greenfeld (1989), it uses art to add to the understanding of social reality. The film industry is a frequent empirical site for addressing network issues. Still, insights come predominantly from the Hollywood pitch (e.g., Faulkner & Anderson, 1987; Jones, 1993). When situated elsewhere, studies mostly employ macro approaches (e.g., Ghertman & Hadida (1998) on the French film industry, Sydow & Windeler (1998) on the German television industry, Starkey, Barnatt, & Tempest (2000) on the U.K. television industry). This study opens up new ground by providing a longitudinal, comparative micro account of network governance evolution in the context of the Spanish cinema. The paper’s contribution is sought first in proposing a micro-level framework for systematic thinking about network governance evolution, distinguishing four dimensions (cogovernance, structure, strategy, and pace) and their respective sub-categories. Second, it advances three peculiar identity profiles with different implications for the evolution of network governance (i.e., a maverick, an integrated professional, and a broker). “Maverick” and “integrated professional” (Becker, 1982) label two different identities – the former, of an agent who breaks the canons of acceptable practice, and the latter, of an agent who follows them. “Broker” denominates the identity of a social entrepreneur who creams the benefits of bridging the non-redundant contacts in his network (Burt, 1992). Last, the paper brings together two bodies of literature that have not conversed frequently (i.e., network governance and identity) in a largely overlooked cultural and historical context, that of Spain after the transition to democracy in 1975. The paper is organized in the following way. The next section highlights the research design, and the methods for data collection and analysis. Then, the extant theory on identity and network governance evolution is reviewed selectively along key parameters and dimensions, advanced in our framework. Propositions regarding the link identity-network governance evolution are advanced, and then illustrated with three longitudinal comparative case studies. Finally, we provide some conclusions emphasizing their limitations and managerial implications, and draw attention to some avenues for future research.