Abstract
Social networks have gained increased attention as a lens to understand employee creativity around the world. We propose that a complete understanding of whether and when structural holes and tie strength are conducive to creativity requires considering the cultural tightness of the country in which individual creators are embedded. Building on the diversity–bandwidth trade-off identified in network research, we theorize that, in culturally tight countries, where knowledge diversity is the primary need, structural holes and low tie strength (i.e., network characteristics that provide knowledge diversity) have a stronger positive effect. Conversely, in culturally loose countries, where knowledge bandwidth is the primary need, cohesive networks and higher tie strength (i.e., network characteristics providing knowledge bandwidth) are more likely to enhance creativity. We find evidence in support of these predictions using meta-analytic data synthesizing more than 30 years of research. These findings point to the importance of considering the tightness of cultural context when constructing networking actions and strategies to foster individual creativity.
Résumé
Les réseaux sociaux reçoivent de plus en plus d’attention en tant que prisme pour concevoir la créativité des employés à travers le monde. Nous proposons que pour comprendre complètement si et quand les trous structurels et la force des liens sont propices à la créativité, il est nécessaire d’examiner la rigidité culturelle du pays dans lequel sont encastrés les créateurs individuels. Nous appuyant sur le compromis entre diversité et étendue (Diversity-Bandwidth Tradeoff) identifié dans la recherche portée sur les réseaux, nous émettons l’hypothèse que dans les pays culturellement rigides, où la diversité des connaissances constitue le principal besoin, les trous structurels et une faible force des liens (c'est-à-dire les caractéristiques du réseau qui apportent la diversité des connaissances) ont un impact positif plus fort. A contrario, dans les pays culturellement souples, où la quantité des connaissances est le principal besoin, les réseaux cohésifs et une force des liens plus élevée (c'est-à-dire les caractéristiques du réseau qui fournissent l’étendue des connaissances) sont plus susceptibles d'accroître la créativité. Nos hypothèses sont corroborées par les résultats de notre analyse qui utilise les données méta-analytiques synthétisant plus de 30 ans de recherche. Ces résultats soulignent l'importance de tenir compte de la rigidité du contexte culturel lors de la construction des actions et des stratégies de réseautage visant à favoriser la créativité individuelle.
Resumen
Las redes sociales han ganado cada vez más atención como un lente para entender la creatividad de los empleados en todo el mundo. Proponemos que una comprensión completa de si los agujeros estructurales y la fuerza de los lazos conducen a la creatividad, y cuándo, requiere tener en cuenta la rigidez cultural del país en el que están arraigados os creadores individuales. Sobre la base de la compensación de la amplitud de diversidad (diversity-bandwidth tradeoff) identificada en la investigación de redes, teorizamos que, en los países culturalmente rígidos, donde la diversidad de conocimientos es la principal necesidad, los agujeros estructurales y la baja fuerza de los vínculos (es decir, las características de la red que proporcionan diversidad de conocimientos) tienen un efecto positivo más fuerte. A la inversa, en los países culturalmente laxos, donde la necesidad de conocimiento es la principal necesidad, es más probable que las redes cohesionadas y la mayor fuerza de los vínculos (es decir, las características de la red que proporcionan la amplitud del conocimiento) mejoren la creatividad. Encontramos evidencias para apoyar estas predicciones utilizando datos meta-analíticos que sintetizan más de 30 años de investigación. Estos resultados señalan la importancia de tener en cuenta la rigidez del contexto cultural al construir acciones y estrategias de red para fomentar la creatividad individual.
Resumo
Redes sociais ganharam mais atenção como uma lente para entender a criatividade de funcionários em todo o mundo. Propomos que uma completa compreensão de se e quando os vácuos estruturais e a força dos laços são benéficos para a criatividade requer considerar a rigidez cultural do país em que criadores individuais estão inseridos. Com base no tradeoff da amplitude de diversidade identificada na pesquisa dobre redes, teorizamos que em países culturalmente estreitos, onde a diversidade de conhecimento é a principal necessidade, vácuos estruturais e baixa força de laço (ou seja, características de rede que fornecem diversidade de conhecimento) têm um efeito positivo mais forte. Por outro lado, em países culturalmente amplos, em que a amplitude do conhecimento é a principal necessidade, redes coesas e maior força de laço (ou seja, características de rede que fornecem amplitude de conhecimento) têm maior probabilidade de aumentar a criatividade. Encontramos evidências em apoio a essas previsões usando dados meta-analíticos sintetizando mais de 30 anos de pesquisa. Esses achados apontam para a importância de considerar o estreitamento do contexto cultural na construção de ações em rede e estratégias para fomentar a criatividade individual.
摘要
社交网络作为了解世界各地员工创造力的一个镜头受到越来越多的关注。我们提出, 要全面了解结构漏洞和联系强度是否以及何时有利于创造力需要考虑各国个体创造者所嵌入的文化紧格度。基于网络研究中所确定的多样性-带宽权衡, 我们推测, 在文化严格的国家, 知识多样性是主要需求, 结构漏洞和低联系强度 (即提供知识多样性的网络特征) 具有更强的积极影响。相反, 在文化宽松的国家, 知识带宽是主要需求, 有凝聚力的网络和更高的联系强度 (即提供知识带宽的网络特征) 更有可能增强创造力。我们使用综合 30 多年研究的元分析数据找到了支持这些预测的证据。这些发现指出了在构建网络行动和策略以培养个体创造力时考虑文化情境的重要性。
References
Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2): 357–376.
Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. 2016. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36: 157–183.
Aral, S., & Van Alstyne, M. 2011. The diversity-bandwidth trade-off. American Journal of Sociology, 117(1): 90–171.
Baldwin, M., & Mussweiler, T. 2018. The culture of social comparison. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 115(39): E9067–E9074.
Beugelsdijk, S., & Welzel, C. 2018. Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(10): 1469–1505.
Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. 2011. On network theory. Organization Science, 22(5): 1168–1181.
Burt, R. S. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2): 349–399.
Burt, R. S. 2019. Network disadvantaged entrepreneurs: Density, hierarchy, and success in China and the West. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1): 19–50.
Burt, R. S. 2021. Social network and creativity. In J. Zhou, & E. D. Rouse (Eds.), Handbook of research on creativity and innovationEdward Elgar.
Chiu, C. Y., & Kwan, L. Y. Y. 2010. Culture and creativity: A process model. Management and Organization Review, 6(3): 447–461.
Chua, R. Y., Huang, K. G., & Jin, M. 2019. Mapping cultural tightness and its links to innovation, urbanization, and happiness across 31 provinces in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 116(14): 6720–6725.
Chua, R. Y. J., Roth, Y., & Lemoine, J. F. 2015. The impact of culture on creativity: How cultural tightness and cultural distance affect global innovation crowdsourcing work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2): 189–227.
Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95–S120.
Cusumano, M. A., & Takeishi, A. 1991. Supplier relations and management: a survey of Japanese, Japanese-transplant, and US auto plants. Strategic Management Journal, 12(8): 563–588.
De Dreu, C. K. 2010. Human creativity: Reflections on the role of culture. Management and Organization Review, 6(3): 437–446.
Gelfand, M. J., Jackson, J. C., Pan, X., Nau, D., Pieper, D., Denison, E., & Wang, M. 2021. The relationship between cultural tightness–looseness and COVID-19 cases and deaths: A global analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(3): 135–144.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. 2006. On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1225.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., Duan, L., Almaliach, A., Ang, S., & Arnadottir, J. 2011. Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033): 1100–1104.
Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6): 1360–1380.
Gunia, B. C., Brett, J. M., Nandkeolyar, A. K., & Kamdar, D. 2011. Paying a price: Culture, trust, and negotiation consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4): 774–789.
Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1): 82–111.
Harrington, J. R., & Gelfand, M. J. 2014. Tightness–looseness across the 50 united states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111(22): 7990–7995.
Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. 1985. Statistical models for meta-analysis. New York: Academic.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. 2010. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage.
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. 2006. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychological Methods, 11(2): 193.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage.
Jackson, J. C., Gelfand, M., De, S., & Fox, A. 2019. The loosening of American culture over 200 years is associated with a creativity–order trade-off. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3): 244–250.
Lane, C., & Bachmann, R. 1996. The social constitution of trust: supplier relations in Britain and Germany. Organization Studies, 17(3): 365–395.
Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. 2004. The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11): 1477–1490.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. 2001. Practical meta-analysis. Sage.
Liu, D., Gong, Y., Zhou, J., & Huang, J.-C. 2017. Human resource systems, employee creativity, and firm innovation: The moderating role of firm ownership. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3): 1164–1188.
Lu, S. C., Kong, D. T., Ferrin, D. L., & Dirks, K. T. 2017. What are the determinants of interpersonal trust in dyadic negotiations? Meta-analytic evidence and implications for future research. Journal of Trust Research, 7(1): 22–50.
Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. 1984. Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63(2): 482–501.
McFadyen, M. A., Semadeni, M., & Cannella, A. A. 2009. Value of strong ties to disconnected others: Examining knowledge creation in biomedicine. Organization Science, 20(3): 552–564.
Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. 2016. Innovation in the collective brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 371(1690): 20150192.
Obstfeld, D. 2005. Social networks, the Tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1): 100–130.
Perry-Smith, J., & Mannucci, P. V. 2015. Social networks, creativity, and entrepreneurship. In The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship, p. 205.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V. 2017. From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42(1): 53–79.
Peterson, M. F., Arregle, J. L., & Martin, X. 2012. Multilevel models in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(5): 451–457.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2): 240–267.
Realo, A., Allik, J., & Greenfield, B. 2008. Radius of trust: Social capital in relation to familism and institutional collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39: 447–462.
Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. 2013. Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources and implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9): 867–897.
Ruef, M. 2002. Strong ties, weak ties and islands: Structural and cultural predictors of organizational innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3): 427–449.
Soda, G. B., Mannucci, P. V., & Burt, R. 2021. Networks, creativity, and time: Staying creative through brokerage and network rejuvenation. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4): 1164–1190.
Soda, G., Stea, D., & Pedersen, T. 2019. Network structure, collaborative context, and individual creativity. Journal of Management, 45(4): 1739–1765.
Sosa, M. E. 2011. Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and social networks. Organization Science, 22(1): 1–21.
Stam, W., Arzlanian, S., & Elfring, T. 2014. Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm performance: A meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1): 152–173.
Suurmond, R., van Rhee, H., & Hak, T. 2017. Introduction, comparison, and validation of Meta-Essentials: A free and simple tool for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 8(4): 537–553.
Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 35–67.
Van den Noortgate, W., López-López, J. A., Marín-Martínez, F., & Sánchez-Meca, J. 2013. Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2): 576–594.
Van Hoorn, A. 2015. Individualist–collectivist culture and trust radius: A multilevel approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(2): 269–276.
Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W. L. 2010. Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2): 112–125.
Xiao, Z., & Tsui, A. S. 2007. When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 1–31.
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. 1994. Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18(2): 129–166.
Yong, K., Mannucci, P. V., & Lander, M. W. 2020. Fostering creativity across countries: The moderating effect of cultural bundles on creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 157: 1–45.
Zhou, J., & Su, Y. 2010. A missing piece of the puzzle: the organizational context in cultural patterns of creativity. Management and Organization Review, 6(3): 391–413.
Acknowledgements
The authors extend their gratitude to associate editor Mark F. Peterson and three anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback throughout the review process. We also thank Raina Brands, Roy Chua, Jill Perry-Smith, Marco Tortoriello, and the participants of EGOS Sub-Theme 36 in Rotterdam, DRUID in Copenhagen, AOM in Anaheim, and SNO in Paris for their helpful comments and suggestions on previous drafts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Accepted by Mark Peterson, Area Editor, 12 March 2022. This article has been with the authors for three revisions.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Flipo, C., Mannucci, P.V. & Yong, K. The impact of cultural tightness on the relationship between structural holes, tie strength, and creativity. J Int Bus Stud 54, 332–343 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-022-00525-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-022-00525-7