| Studies in strategic management and organization theory suggest that a firm's behaviors are affected by its location in a network of inter-organizational relationships. While there is also some evidence that network positions have important implications for firms' performance, there is no agreement among researchers on which particular network configurations are advantageous for firms. One of the key ideas currently dominating the literature is "open network" or "structural holes" perspective, according to which a firm can obtain important performance advantages when exploiting brokerage opportunities created by the absence of ties between its partners. In this dissertation, I explicitly focus on the boundary conditions of "open" network view, more specifically, on factors that help firms translate their positions in open networks into tangible performance outcomes. The key contribution of this dissertation to the network literature is its treatment of network members as heterogeneous entities whose individual properties differentially affect whether or not they can benefit from access to structural holes. Specifically, I explore how firm-level characteristics, i.e. (a) scope of their activities (i.e. presence in different business sectors); (b) scale (i.e. size); (c) multimarket contact with partners; (d) network centrality, each affect a firm's ability to benefit from structural holes. The research setting is a population of financial advisory firms acting as consultants to domestic and international companies participating in Merger and Acquisition (M&A) deals in the United Kingdom between 1992 and 2001. My empirical results provide broad support for theoretical arguments. I find that firms with wide scope, high levels of MMC to their network partners or peripheral network location improve performance in open networks. In a post-hoc analysis, I examine the existence of a feedback loop between firm performance, firm characteristics and its network position. |
