Beyond Networks and Hierarchies: Latent Organizations in the U.K. Television Industry

Abstract

Since the mid 1980s, organization theorists have highlighted the emergence of the networked model of organization as a response to global competition and pressures for increased market flexibility. Cultural industries have not been immune from this development. In this paper, we examine the shift from hierarchy to network in the U.K. television industry. We argue that an important result of this disaggregation is the emergence of latent organization, groupings of individuals and teams of individuals that persist through time and are periodically drawn together for recurrent projects by network brokers who either buy in programmes for publisher-broadcasters or who draw together those artists and technicians who actually produce them. In conclusion, we note how latent organizations may become increasingly important for effective cultural industry production, and in particular how they may provide stable points of reference and recurring work projects for those many individuals now working outside of large, vertically integrated producer-broadcasters.

Creative Leadership: A Multi-Context Conceptualization

“…Many recent studies have examined the link between brokerage and creativity at the individual (e.g., Fleming, Mingo, & Chen, 2007;Obstfeld, 2005), organizational (e.g., Starkey, Barnatt, & Tempest, 2000); inter-organizational (e.g., Dodgson, Gann, & Salter, 2007), and network (e.g., Uzzi & Spiro, 2005) levels. While some studies in this research stream view brokers as tastemakers or selectors of creative work, other studies view brokers as creative leaders who co-produce a creative work (cf.…”

Tackling the "Galacticos" effect: team familiarity and the performance of star-studded projects

“…If reactivated, these relationships "promote trust among the parties involved and function as critical repositories of shared learned experiences and knowledge that can be retrieved as the same actors work together on a new project" (Cattani, Ferriani, Fredriksen and Täube, 2010: xviii; see also Jones, 1996). According to Starkey, Barnatt and Tempest (2000), who derive their insights from research interviews in the UK television industry, continuity of relationships among project members provides a context within which to develop the individual cognitive schemata required to seamlessly integrate each other's capabilities and adjust individual contributions accordingly (Ferriani et al, 2005). As acclaimed director Sydney Pollack pointed out, working with other professionals who are on the same wavelength is perceived as "an emotional pleasure" (quoted in Jones and DeFillippi, 1996: 97), to the point that "when you find people you can work with you never want to give them up" (quoted in Jones et al, 1997: 12).…”

Entertainment Architecture: Constructing a framework for the creation of an emerging transmedia form

“…In a slightly wider context, this third step strives to combine the textuality and deep movie knowledge of film studies and theory (Eisenstein 1949;Deleuze 1986;Kracauer 1960;Bazin 1967;Ellis 1992;Bordwell and Thompson 2008;Braudy and Cohen 2008;Monaco 2009;Caldwell 2003;Ryan and Hearn 2010;Harris 2007;Ross 2008;Luckman and de Roeper 2008;Kaufman and Mohan 2008;Connolly 2008), the social relationship between producers and consumers of media studies (Fiske and Hartley 1978;Hartley 2009b;Caldwell 2008;Dyer 2002), the business strategy of marketing and business (Drucker 2007;Porter 1998;Bennis and Nanus 1997;Kaplan and Norton 1992;Magretta 2002;Kotler and Armstrong 2010;Belch and Belch 2009;Starkey, Barnatt and Tempest 2000;Eliashberg, Elberse and Leenders 2006), the dynamics of change of evolutionary and complexity theories (Darwin 2008(Darwin [1859; Arthur 2009;Maynard Smith 1993;Dawkins 2006), traditional economics (Smith 1776;Marshall 1890;Keynes 1936;Coase 1937;Samuelson and Nordhaus 2010;Williamson 1975;…”