Relational Changes During Role Transitions: The Interplay of Efficiency and Cohesion

Abstract

This study looks at what happens to the collection of relationships (network) of service professionals during a role transition (promotion to a management role). Our setting is three professional service firms where we examine changes in relations of recently promoted service professionals (auditors, consultants, and lawyers). We take a comprehensive look at the drivers of two forms of network changes -tie loss and tie gain. Looking backward we examine the characteristics of the contact, the relationship, and social structure and identify which forces are at play in losing ties, revealing an overarching tendency for both cohesion and efficiency forces to play a role. Looking forward, we identify the effect of previous network structures that act as a "shadow of the past" and impact the quality of newly gained relations during the role transitions. Findings demonstrate that role transitions are not only influenced by a few key contacts but that the entire (extant) network of professional relationships shapes the way people reconfigure their workplace relations during a role transition. ABSTRACTThis study looks at what happens to the collection of relationships (network) of service professionals during a role transition (promotion to a management role). Our setting is three professional service firms where we examine changes in relations of recently promoted service professionals (auditors, consultants, and lawyers). We take a comprehensive look at the drivers of two forms of network changes -tie loss and tie gain. Looking backward we examine the characteristics of the contact, the relationship, and social structure and identify which forces are at play in losing ties, revealing an overarching tendency for both cohesion and efficiency forces to play a role. Looking forward, we identify the effect of previous network structures that act as a "shadow of the past" and impact the quality of newly gained relations during the role transitions. Findings demonstrate that role transitions are not only influenced by a few key contacts but that the entire (extant) network of professional relationships shapes the way people reconfigure their workplace relations during a role transition.

The Network Architecture of Human Captial: A Relational Identity Perspective

“…As employees experience modifications to the composition, configuration, and/or content of their networks, they undergo a process of identity reconstruction in which they must cope with the loss of their old role-relationship identities (Conroy & O'Leary-Kelly, 2014;Ebaugh, 1988), negotiate how they will coherently incorporate their new relational identities into their existing self-concept (Ibarra, 1999;Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010), and may ultimately develop a new identity in which they have reconciled the loss of their former role identities with the acquisition of new role identities (Ashforth, 2001;Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann, 2006). This transition and adaptation process for individuals is characterized by periods of liminality (the condition of being betwixt and between; Conroy & O'Leary-Kelly, 2014) and discontinuity, which can significantly impact the effectiveness by which they demonstrate their competencies and enact their roles in relation to those with whom they are connected (Ashforth & Saks, 1995;Jonczyk, Lee, Galunic, & Bensaou, 2016). Indeed, modifications to individuals' social networks potentially impair "taken for granted roles and routines, causing those in the organization to question fundamental assumptions about how they should act" (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014: 77).…”

“…Indeed, modifications to individuals' social networks potentially impair "taken for granted roles and routines, causing those in the organization to question fundamental assumptions about how they should act" (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014: 77). Therefore, individuals engage in an adaptation process where they attempt to bridge the gap between what was and what is (Louis, 1980;Petriglieri, 2011) through efforts that are jointly psychological, requiring identity formation or reorientation (Ashforth & Saks, 1995;Ibarra, 1999), and behavioral, involving changes in relationships (Jonczyk et al, 2016).…”

“…Extending our assertion that network configuration-modifying HR practices alter the density, equivalence, and brokerage of employees' social networks, we propose that these network modifications can disrupt individuals' relational identities in two overarching ways: changing one's formal position in a manner that impacts a work role-based relational identity (e.g., manager), or changing one's informal network position in a manner that impacts their network-based relational identity (broker; member of a densely-connected team). With respect to formal role-relationship identities, an individual who clearly enacts the generalized relationship of "colleague" may display helping behaviors towards, gossip with, and tell jokes to his coworkers; if this individual is promoted to a managerial position, his expectations of "normal" behaviors are no longer appropriate for a supervisor to enact toward subordinates, and he may struggle with developing a new generalized relational identity that demonstrates behavior consistent with performance of the new managerial role (Biddle, 1986;Jonczyk et al, 2016), such as offering advice, delivering feedback, and interacting professionally.…”

Studying the multilevel impact of cohesion versus structural holes in knowledge networks on adaptation to IT‐enabled patient‐care practices

“…For example, with respect to organisational change, structural holes are found to be more conducive than cohesion for change initiatives that diverge significantly from the institution's status quo but not for less radical change initiatives (Battilana & Casciaro, ). Other work has found both cohesion and structural holes to impact the network structure transitions that occur following role transitions and promotions in organisations (Jonczyk et al, ). Still other studies have found cultural factors to play a contingency role in the relative importance of cohesion versus structural holes towards social capital (Chai & Rhee, ; Xiao & Tsui, ).…”

“…Cohesion and structural holes also affect how individuals acquire external knowledge and transform it into innovations (Tortoriello, ). These characteristics have been discussed as enabling or hindering social capital (Chai & Rhee, ; Gargiulo & Benassi, ), organisational change (Battilana & Casciaro, ), the change of network relations following transitions in professional roles (Jonczyk, Lee, Galunic, & Bensaou, ), and others. Prior literature, therefore, provides good support for investigating cohesion and structural holes as network structural antecedents to adaptation to EMR‐enabled patient‐care work in this study.…”