O impacto das características estruturais da rede no seu desempenho: um estudo comparativo

Claudio Lira Meirelles; Thais Cereda Ravasi; Fabio Teixeira Arten; João Paulo Lara Siqueira

doi:10.21710/rch.v9i0.128

Autores

Claudio Lira Meirelles
Thais Cereda Ravasi
Fabio Teixeira Arten
João Paulo Lara Siqueira

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21710/rch.v9i0.128

Palavras-chave:

estrutura de rede, centralidade, desempenho

Resumo

Esta pesquisa buscou compreender a relação entre a posição do ator central e o desempenho de uma rede, verificando a influência do desempenho do ator central sobre os demais atores. Entre os objetivos específicos, buscou-se descrever o conteúdo transacional, a natureza das ligações e as características estruturais da rede. Os dados foram coletados por meio de um questionário e analisados com o auxílio do software UCINET 6.0 e do programa Excel. Os resultados sugerem que o desempenho dos atores com os maiores índices de centralidade está relacionado com o desempenho dos atores de 1º escalão das sub-redes destes atores centrais.

Referências

Burt, R.S. 1992. Structural Holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Castells, M. 2000. Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society. British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 5–24.

Christakis, N.A. & Fowler, J.H. 2007. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine: 370–379.

Everett, M. & Borgatti, S.P. 2005. Extending centrality. In: Carrington, P.J.; Scott, J. & Wasserman, S. (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Feld, S.L. 1991. Why your friends have more friends than you do. American Journal of Sociology 96: 1464-1477.

Frye, B.A. 2010. With (III) friends like these: “friendship paradox” predicts spread of disease. Research Roudup.

Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology: 481-510.

Hanneman, R.A. & Riddle, M. 2005. Introduction to Social Network Methods. Universityde California, Riverside.

Jost, J. & Zuckerman, E.W. 2001. What makes you think you're so popular? self-e valuation maintenance and the subjective side of the “friendship paradox”. Social Psychology Quarterly 64(3): 207 – 223.

Kadushin, C. 1995. Friendship among the French financial elite. American Sociological Association 60(2): 202-221.

Mendes-da-Silva, W. 2011. Small Worlds and Board Interlocking in Brazil: A Longitudinal Study of Corporate Networks, 1997-2007. Brazilian Finance Review 4(4): 521-548.

Nohria, N. 1992. Is a network perspective a useful way of studying organizations? In: Nohria, N. & Ecles, R. (Orgs.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Harvard Business School, Boston.

Selnes, F. & Sallis, J. 2003. Promoting Relationship Learning. Journal of Marketing 67. Tichy, N.; Tushman, M. & Fombrun, C. 1979. Social Networks analysis for organizations. Academy of Management Review 4(4): 507-519.

Wilson, M. 2010. Using the friendship paradox to sample a social network: when applied to random nodes in a network, the statement “your friends have more friends that do” has predictive power. Physics today, November.

Woodcock, S. 2010. Moral schizophrenia and the paradox of friendship. Utilitas 22(1):1