Network Atmosphere

The notion of networks having a discernable ‘atmosphere’ and therefore a clear identity, is seen as the result of the resulting social bonds and inherent attractiveness of the network, suggested by Granovetter (1985). The concept of network atmosphere is recognised as being problematic because of the interconnectedness of the terms surrounding phrases like network environment and network characteristics (Holmlund

and Törnroos 1997). Firms appreciating the relative attractiveness of embedded networks are able to describe the network atmosphere and perceive distinct differences in relative network performance (Ritter et al. 2004). Network atmosphere is considered to be an important precursor to understanding network identity, the network characteristics and therefore the attractiveness of the network from the firm’s focal perspective within a network exchange, offering a more holistic perspective to the possibility of business-to-business networks (Birley 1985; Easton and Araujo 1994; Gadde and Mattsson 1987;

Galaskiewicz 1985). Network atmosphere is therefore important in the development of long term relationships, their characteristics, antecedents and consequences, as well as the dynamic within the whole network (Henneberg et al. 2006).

Network Attractiveness

The idea of network attractiveness being a desirable quality from a firm’s perspective is an established social phenomena, recognised within social groups or networks as a prelude to social interaction (Granovetter 1973). Attractiveness means to cause interest or pleasure and has been the subject of study in behavioural aspects of social psychology, social exchange and oganisational behaviour. Network attractiveness is defined as a mutual construct which describes the mutual interest between actors within a network (Ellegaard and Ritter 2008). Network attractiveness is determined by dimensions of emotional consideration, interaction process and value creation.

The conceptualisation of the environment of the firm as being socially bounded has been questioned in organisation theory and resource dependence theory (Miles and Snow

1986). However, drawing on this research, Anderson and Håkansson (1994) stressed the importance of social attractiveness in dyadic business relationships and the environment in which they operate. This idea was endorsed by Gadde and Mattsson (1987) and whilst these researchers generalised when talking about the social exchange perspective on dyadic relations and social networks, all agree that exchange relationships are contingent on network attractiveness. A firm’s network perspective provides the context for reviewing the perceived attractiveness of a network of connected business partners (Håkansson and Snehota 1989). The concept of network attractiveness being influenced by the network profile and identity within the overall network atmosphere, is seen as the focal firm’s perspective within the dyadic network construct and was influential in the development of the conceptual framework.

Network Size

Networks cannot be defined by a single firm or actor in a network. Relationships between firms and actors in a network are complex and the perspective of a network should be as broad as possible (Ford et al. 2003). Neither is it sufficient to count the nodes or connections in a single network, as seemingly simple networks quickly expand through a complex set of interrelationships to form complex network structures (Håkansson and Snehota 1995). Networks, whether formal or informal structures, are almost always overlapping, said to be viewed not as a constellation of networks but rather a galaxy (Misner and Morgan 2000). A network requires a number of actors to be considered effective but opinion on the minimum size of an effective network is divided, with researchers suggesting rather than an absolute number in a network, it depends how

influential the actors in the network are (Burg 1999). This follows the idea that networks consist of spheres of influence, with hub firms or actors attracting their own satellite of network contacts.

Network Identity

Actors have bounded knowledge about the networks in which they are engaged limited by the perceived network horizon and the inability to see beyond a number of network connections and relationships (Håkansson 1982). A network horizon will vary over time and the part of the network within the horizon that the actor considers relevant at any point in time is what according to Håkansson and Snehota (1989), gives the network its context or identity. It is this fluid configuration of connected firms that defines the identity of the network and the relationships which provide a perceived level of importance (Anderson and Håkansson 1994). In considering identity and identification in networks, Huemer et al. (2004) the notion of identities in networks is introduced which is said to enhance the awareness of interdependence and embeddedness, which in turn promotes a sense of belonging. However, the interpretation of network identity in this study differs from the perspective of Huemer et al. (2004), in that the focus of network identity is concerned with the marketing perception of image and reputation creating the network identity, as helpfully delineated by Ellis et al. (2011, p.402). In this thesis, it is the network ‘identity’ which is seen how defines how firms see the network as an entity itself, rather than hoe they see themselves in the network and how they are seen by others in the network. Because network identity is perceived from the viewpoint of the actor or firm, it is important to describe network identity in the context of the network under

consideration, and it is for this reason that it was considered in the same dimension as the perceived network atmosphere, suggested by (Achrol 1997; Achrol and Kotler 1999).

Network Profile

Network profile is defined as how the network is perceived from the viewpoint of the actors in a network (Achrol and Kotler 1999). It is seen in the same dimension as network atmosphere and is considered to be an an important operational factor in assessing the relative strength of a network. Network profile is described as being how the the network is seen by others (Håkansson and Snehota 1989).