A Status Value Theory of Power in Exchange Relations

Thye, Shane R.

doi:10.2307/2657464

Cited by 313 publications

(230 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

215

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…− Not supported relationships. A large status asymmetry, especially in terms of societal status, will bring more benefits for firms with low status, shedding light on the often-debated issue of who reaps the most benefit in alliance relations (Das et al, 1998;Thye, 2000). In addition to examining the interactions between the resource-based view and the institutional perspective, we have also identified some important moderating factors that may delineate their respective theoretical boundaries.…”

Section: − Supportedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By status, we refer to, 'a socially constructed, intersubjectively agreedupon and accepted ordering or ranking of individuals, groups, organizations, or activities in a social system' (Washington and Zajac, 2005: 284). It reflects an actor's relative standing in a group based on prestige, honor, and deference (Thye, 2000). Status is a socially constructed concept that may not always be economically rational.…”

Section: Institutional Perspective On Alliancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alliance partners and firm performance: resource complementarity and status association

Lin

Yang

Arya

2009

Strategic Management Journal

319

232

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: − Supportedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Institutional Perspective On Alliancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alliance partners and firm performance: resource complementarity and status association

Lin

Yang

Arya

2009

Strategic Management Journal

319

232

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In different technology-intensive industries, Shrum and Wuthnow (1988) found that reputational status is indeed a function of the firm's total number of ties to other firms. Status in turn has a positive effect on exchange: actors with higher status are more preferred exchange partners (Thye, 2000). 4 In view of these different benefits, the prior literature would thus suggest a linear and positive (controlling for the number of technological domains covered by past licensing deals).…”

Section: Centrality In Licensing Exchange Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Licensing Exchange - Insights from the Biopharmaceutical Industry

Wuyts

Dutta

2007

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Licensing out technologies is a main source of revenue for dedicated technology firms. While licensing exchange has received very little attention in prior marketing literature, it is economically important and poses particular challenges. One major obstacle for obtaining new licensing deals is the information asymmetry between licensors and licensees. The main premise of this study is that the variation among dedicated technology firms of the number of new licensing deals that they obtain can be explained by their voluntary disclosure of strategic information and their position in the industry's licensing and social networks. An empirical study of the biopharmaceutical industry shows that, while voluntarily disclosing strategic information enables dedicated biotechnology firms to sign more new licensing deals, firms should be careful not to disclose too much information. As to network structure, dedicated biotechnology firms with more central positions in the licensing exchange network obtain more new licensing deals, but again, the effect has an inverted-U shape, indicating a dark side of network centrality. Finally, the study provides evidence that licensing exchange is socially embedded. A central position in the social network of board interlocks leads to more new licensing deals. Dedicated technology firms can use these insights to address practical questions, such as how much strategic information they should reveal, as well as to set long-term directions regarding network position.3

show abstract

“…For such reasons, neurological processes may promote awareness of or attention to social unit affiliations that are part of the context within which emotions occur. 1972b; Markovsky, Wilier, and Patton 1988;Skvoretz and Lovaglia 1995;Stolte and Emerson 1977;Thye 2000a;Thye, Lovaglia, and Markovsky 1997;Wilier 1999). The relational aspect of social exchange is tied to the fact that structures tend to generate repeated exchanges among the same actors.…”

Section: Background: Relational Dimensions Of Exchangementioning

confidence: 99%

Social Exchange and Micro Social Order

2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study uses an affect theory of social exchange (Lawler 2001) to investigate how and when network structures generate "micro social orders. " Micro social order entails recurrent interactions, emotional reactions, perceptions of a group, and affective sentiments. The core theoretical argument is that micro orders, involving behavioral, cognitive, and affective dimensions, develop and are stronger to the degree that (1) actors engage in highly joint tasks or activities and (2) these tasks generate a sense of shared responsibility for the interaction outcomes. A laboratory experiment varies different forms of social exchange-negotiated, reciprocal, generalized, and productive-within a network structure, and offers strong support for the core expectation that productive forms of exchange generate the strongest micro order. Conversely, generalized exchange generates the weakest order, with negotiated and reciprocal forms in between. In general, productive exchange bolsters more exchange behavior, more positive feelings, perceptions of cohesion at the network level, and affective attachments to the network as a social unit. This research has broad implications for the conditions under which task activity promotes micro social orders that involve strong person-to-group ties (as opposed to person-to-person ties) and affective sentiments regarding the social unit. interactions, emotional reactions, perceptions of a group, and affective sentiments. The core theoretical argument is that micro orders, involving behavioral, cognitive, and affective dimensions, develop and are stronger to the degree that (1) actors engage in highly joint tasks or activities and (2) these tasks generate a sense of shared responsibility for the interaction outcomes. A laboratory experiment varies different forms of social exchange-negotiated, reciprocal, generalized, and productive-within a network structure, and offers strong support for the core expectation that productive forms of exchange generate the strongest micro order.Conversely, generalized exchange generates the weakest order, with negotiated and reciprocal forms in between. In general, productive exchange bolsters more exchange behavior, more positive feelings, perceptions of cohesion at the network level, and affective attachments to the network as a social unit. This research has broad implications for the conditions under which task activity promotes micro social orders that involve strong person-to-group ties (as opposed to person-to-person ties) and affective sentiments regarding the social unit.

show abstract

A Status Value Theory of Power in Exchange Relations

Cited by 313 publications

References 46 publications

Alliance partners and firm performance: resource complementarity and status association

Alliance partners and firm performance: resource complementarity and status association

Licensing Exchange - Insights from the Biopharmaceutical Industry

Social Exchange and Micro Social Order

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About