South Asian Journal of Management

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Antecedents of Dyadic Group Formation Intention from a Networks’ Perspective:An Exploratory Study on Management Students


Affiliations
1 Department of OB & HR, Rajagiri Business School, Rajagiri Valley P. O., Kakkanad, Kochi 682039, Kerala, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


An individual forms a perception of the fellow members of organization or department based on several factors. In this paper we specifically deal with factors affecting dyadic (one to one) group formation intention of an individual. We derived various antecedents of dyadic group formation intention of an individual from inter-personal attraction literature, matching literature, group literature and social networks literature. Combining all the aspects from these literatures, we propose a model in this study which would broaden our understanding of group literature and networks literature. We have developed various hypotheses on the relationship between dyadic group formation intention and its antecedents. Using data collected from the MBA students who are in their last trimester, of a reputed Business school in India, the hypotheses were tested and results were analyzed using hierarchal regression modeling. In total, 111 responses from students, nested in 555 dyads were kept for final analysis. We found that relational factors like trust and tie-strength which developed over the time were predictors of dyadic group formation intention whereas similarity and task based factors which developed in very less time and were contextual were not predictors of dyadic group formation intention. Based on the findings, detailed implications of the results are discussed and the future scope and limitations are highlighted.

Keywords

Complementarity, Group Formation Intention, Social Networks, Similarity,Trust.
User
Subscription Login to verify subscription
Notifications
Font Size

  • Aldrich, H. E., & Kim, P. H. (2007). Small worlds, infinite possibilities? How social networks affect entrepreneurial team formation and search. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2), 147-165.

  • Biggart, N. W. (2001). Banking on each other: the situational logic of rotating savings and credit associations. Advances in Qualitative Organization Research, 3(1), 129-152.

  • Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432-445.

  • Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892-895.

  • Boschini, A., & Sjögren, A. (2007). Is team formation gender neutral? Evidence from coauthorship patterns. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(2), 325-365.

  • Burt, R. S. (1997). A note on social capital and network content. Social Networks, 19(4), 355-373.

  • Burt, R.S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345-423.

  • Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9-30.

  • Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. (1973). Interpersonal attraction. Annual Review of Psychology, 24(1), 317-336.

  • Byrne, D., Clore, G., & Smeaton, G. (1986). The attraction hypothesis: do similar attitudes affect anything?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1167-1170.

  • Byrne, D., London, O., & Reeves, K. (1968). The effects of physical attractiveness, sex, and attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality, 36, 259-271.

  • Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 55-79.

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite? Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-290.

  • Cohen, P. R., Levesque., H. J., & Ira, Smith. (1997). On Team Formation. In G. H. Hintikka., & R. Tuomela. (eds.), Contemporary Action Theory, 2, 87-114, Social Action, Synthese Library, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

  • Coleman, J. S., & Coleman, J. S. (1994). Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard university press.

  • Costa, A. C. (2003). Work group trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review, 32(5), 605-622.

  • Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.

  • Cross, R., Rice, R. E., & Parker, A. (2001). Informational seeking in social context: Structural influences and receipt of information benefits. IEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part C: Applications and Reviews, 31, 438-448.

  • Forbes, D. P., Borchert, P. S., ZellmerBruhn, M. E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2006). Entrepreneurial team formation: An exploration of new member addition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2), 225-248.

  • Francis, D. H., & Sandberg, W. R. (2000). Friendship within entrepreneurial teams and its association with team and venture performance. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25(2), 5-5.

  • Gaston, M. E., & Des Jardins, M. (2008). The effect of network structure on dynamic team formation in multi-agent systems. Computational Intelligence, 24(2), 122-157.

  • Granovetter, M., & Soong, R. (1983). Threshold models of diffusion and collective behavior. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 9(3), 165-179.

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 1360-1380.

  • Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2008). Conflict transformation a longitudinal investigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Research, 39(3), 278-302.

  • Guimera, R., Danon, L., Diaz-Guilera, A., Giralt, F., & Arenas, A. (2003). Selfsimilar community structure in a network of human interactions. Physical Review E, 68(6), 065103.

  • Guimera, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308(5722), 697-702.

  • Hazeyama, A., Sawabe, N., & Komiya, S. (2002). Group Organization System for Software Engineering Group Learning with Genetic Algorithm. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, 85(4), 666-673.

  • Henderson, J. K. (2005). Language diversity in international management groups. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(1), 66-82.

  • Hofmann, D. A., Lei, Z., & Grant, A. M. (2009). Seeking help in the shadow of doubt: the sense making processes underlying how nurses decide whom to ask for advice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1261.

  • Hogg, M. A. & Turner, J. C. (1985). Interpersonal attraction, social identification and psychological group formation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(1), 51-66.

  • Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1985). When liking begets solidarity: An experiment on the role of interpersonal attraction in psychological group formation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24(4), 267-281.

  • Horowitz, M. J. (1997). Stress response syndromes. PTSD, grief and adjustment disorders. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aroson

  • Jovanovic, B. (1979). Job matching and the theory of turnover. The Journal of Political Economy, 972-990.

  • Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965-990.

  • Kaplan, M. F., & Olczak, P. V. (1971). Attraction toward another as a function of similarity and commonality of attitudes. Psychological Reports, 28(2), 515-521.

  • Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: what is attractive—self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity or attachment security?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 709.

  • Lawler, E. J., & Yoon, J. (1998). Network structure and emotion in exchange relations. American Sociological Review, 871-894.

  • Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4), 967-985.

  • Li, C. T., & Shan, M. K. (2010, August). Team formation for generalized tasks in expertise social networks. In Social Computing (SocialCom), 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on (9-16). IEEE.

  • Liemhetcharat, S., & Veloso, M. (2012, June). Modeling and learning synergy for team formation with heterogeneous agents. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1(365-374). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.

  • Logan, J. A. (1996). Opportunity and choice in socially structured labor markets. American Journal of Sociology, 114-160.

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

  • Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984).Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63(2), 482-501.

  • Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Group effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410-476.

  • McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.

  • McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 415-444.

  • Mittal, S., Sengupta, A., Agrawal, N. M., & Gupta, S. (2018). How prosocial is proactive: Developing and validating a scale and process model of knowledgebased proactive helping. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-26.doi: 10.1017/jmo.2017.80

  • Möllering, G. (2001). The nature of trust: from Georg Simmel to a theory of expectation, interpretation and suspension. Sociology, 35(2), 403-420.

  • Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a singleitem approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(1), 77-86

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.

  • Nowicki, S., & Manheim, S. (1991). Interpersonal complementarity and time of interaction in female relationships. Journal of Research in Personality, 25(3), 322-333.

  • Rousseau, D. M. (2003). Now let’s make multi-level research on trust doable. Research in Multi Level Issues, 3, 159-166.

  • Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.

  • Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of founding groups: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 195-222.

  • Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344-354.

  • Shirakawa, K., Hashiura, H., Saito, H., & Komiya, S (2008). Optimization of Grouping and Team Formation of Students for Class Exercise Based on Analysis of Human Factors by Covariance Structure Analysis. WSEAS Transactions on Advances in Engineering, 176-186.

  • Simon, C. J., & Warner, J. T. (1992). Matchmaker, matchmaker: The effect of old boy networks on job match quality, earnings, and tenure. Journal of Labor Economics, 306-330.

  • Thoits, P. A. (1984). Coping, social support, and psychological outcomes: The central role of emotion. In P. Shaver (ed.). Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 5: 219-38, Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage.

  • Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L., & Fombrun, C. (1979). Social network analysis for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 507-519.

  • Tseng, T. L. B., Huang, C. C., Chu, H. W., & Gung, R. R. (2004). Novel approach to multi-functional project team formation. International Journal of Project Management, 22(2), 147-159.

  • Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 674-698.

  • Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35-67.

  • Vissa, B. (2011). A matching theory of entrepreneurs’ tie formation intentions and initiation of economic exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 137-158.

  • Wanous, J. P., & Hudy, M. J. (2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension. Organizational Research Methods, 4(4), 361-375.

  • Wi, H., Oh, S., Mun, J., & Jung, M. (2009). A team formation model based on knowledge and collaboration. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 9121-9134.

  • Zott, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 70-10.


Abstract Views: 210

PDF Views: 0




  • Antecedents of Dyadic Group Formation Intention from a Networks’ Perspective:An Exploratory Study on Management Students

Abstract Views: 210  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Shashank Mittal
Department of OB & HR, Rajagiri Business School, Rajagiri Valley P. O., Kakkanad, Kochi 682039, Kerala, India

Abstract


An individual forms a perception of the fellow members of organization or department based on several factors. In this paper we specifically deal with factors affecting dyadic (one to one) group formation intention of an individual. We derived various antecedents of dyadic group formation intention of an individual from inter-personal attraction literature, matching literature, group literature and social networks literature. Combining all the aspects from these literatures, we propose a model in this study which would broaden our understanding of group literature and networks literature. We have developed various hypotheses on the relationship between dyadic group formation intention and its antecedents. Using data collected from the MBA students who are in their last trimester, of a reputed Business school in India, the hypotheses were tested and results were analyzed using hierarchal regression modeling. In total, 111 responses from students, nested in 555 dyads were kept for final analysis. We found that relational factors like trust and tie-strength which developed over the time were predictors of dyadic group formation intention whereas similarity and task based factors which developed in very less time and were contextual were not predictors of dyadic group formation intention. Based on the findings, detailed implications of the results are discussed and the future scope and limitations are highlighted.

Keywords


Complementarity, Group Formation Intention, Social Networks, Similarity,Trust.

References