Network Environment

The network environment and the idea of networks being defined by the behaviour of the actors within the network having a discernable purpose and therefore sense of destiny (Ford 1998), is encapsulated in the notion of the network environment being the enabler of network outcomes There is a link between network behaviour and outcomes and the resultant economic action (Granovetter 1985b). This has been the premise on which the nature of relationships and the exchanges they encompass have been investigated in the past. The notion of networks having a discernable environment, is built on a number of network observations and the concept of an equal power network, where members develop close relationships on the basis of reciprocal and mutually supportive actions developed (Thorelli1986). Research also suggests that where greater attention is directed to understanding the embedded context within which the dyadic business relationships exist, this provides useful measures of network performance, including resource

transferability, relationship cooperation, relationship commitment and network behaviour (Anderson and Håkansson 1994). Heterogeneity in dyadic network relationships, where actor perceptions differ, has been examined by successive researchers; Ford et al. (1998), Greve and Salaff (2003), Håkansson (1982), Holmlund and Törnroos (1997). Findings describe the variations in network perspective linked to network environment, where firms having different reasons for joining the network increased their perception of the value of network outcomes as the intensity of the networking contacts increased (Achrol and Kotler 1999; Medlin 2003b; Ritter 2002; Snehota 2003).

Networking Behaviour

Described as the interactive network process whereby actors seek to develop close relationships on the basis of reciprocal and mutually beneficial acts, network behaviour is seen to be a reliable indicator of performance in networks (Thorelli 1986). Network behaviour can be seen to have stabilising or destabilising consequences on the performance of the network. A business network is sustained by dyadic business relationships, which by their nature are dynamic and can be heavily influenced by the perceived behaviour of actors within the dyadic structure of the network, strengthening or weakening the network by their individual actions (Anderson and Håkansson 1994).

Network behaviour is a conditioning process, influenced by individuals’ actions within the group and the network horizon. Behaviour is bounded by the network environment, network rules, network traditions, relationships and business connections. The boundary may not be arbitrary but patterns of network behaviour can be measured against the actor’s perception of network outcomes and network performance. This in turn influences

the network’s reputation, conveying a sense of importance and competence in the network exchange (Achrol and Kotler 1999). Palmer and Richards (1999) identified that while actors believed in demonstrating positive networking behaviour, they were encumbered by present organisational behavioural norms and networking preferences.

Networking Intensity

Intensity refers to the extent of the interacting organisations’ resources committed to the network relationship, in terms of frequency of contact & amount of resources (Aldrich 1979). Networking intensity is said to refer to the extent to which individuals (actors) honour their obligations to others in the network (O’Donnell et al. 2001). Intensity is also recognised as an important dimension of a network’s environment (Gemünden et al. 1996;

Haynes and Senneseth 2001). Frequency of interaction is considered likely to have a positive influence of firm performance (Üstüner and Iacabucci 2012). Successful networks are said to be characterised by consistent interaction among members and regular sharing of information (Hollenbeck et al. 2009, p.134). However, intensity alone may not be a indicator of networking performance but there is evidence that when linked with networking behaviour, networking intensity has a positive impact on networking outcomes (Van de Ven 1976).

Network Activation

Frequency of network activation is used as a measure by Üstüner and Iacabucci (2012, p.194) in a study of interorganisational embeddedness in networks and salespeople’s

effectiveness. The construct is based on the frequency of activating network ties, rather than being a more traditional measure of the number of network ties, or contacts in a network. Network tie activation may be by a face-to-face meeting, a digital communication or some other identifiable network activation activity. Network activation may be formal, i.e. in a network meeting or informal, in a more social setting. Steward et al. (2010, p.563) found that salespeople were more likely to use their personal contact network first before turning to more formal network systems, suggesting that salespeople should “enhance the value and usability of formal network systems”.

Network Contacts

Network analysis was based on studying the dyadic connections between actor nodes and the subsequent ties in a network. From this the study of the interconnections and relations in networks emerged Ford et al. 2003). Salespeople were found to create customer value by gaining access and leveraging talent from their network contacts to develop and deliver customer solutions (Steward et al. 2008). But in considering the value of network contacts, Üstüner and Godes (2006, p.102) found “managers often view sales networks only in terms of numbers of direct contacts. But someone who knows a lot of people doesn’t necessarily have an effective network, because networks often pay off most handsomely through indirect contacts”. The notion of network contacts is associated with network ties and the strength of weak ties in considering the issue of embeddedness in networks (Granovetter 1985). There are clear overlaps in the literature when discussing network contacts and relationships in networks in the context of a business network from the perspective of the focal firm or actor.