Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:26:38.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Informal Networks: Dark Sides, Bright Sides, and Unexplored Dimensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2020

Sven Horak ,
Fida Afiouni ,
Yanjie Bian ,
Alena Ledeneva ,
Maral Muratbekova-Touron  and
Carl F. Fey
Sven Horak
Affiliation:
St. John's University, USA
Fida Afiouni
Affiliation:
American University of Beirut, Lebanon
Yanjie Bian
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, USA Xi'an Jiaotong University, China
Alena Ledeneva
Affiliation:
University College London, UK
Maral Muratbekova-Touron
Affiliation:
ESCP Europe, France
Carl F. Fey*
Affiliation:
Aalto University, Finland
*
Corresponding author: Carl Fey ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Informal networking can be seen as a positive activity with beneficial outcomes for individuals, firms, and society as a whole, but informal networking can also lead to collusion, cliques, nepotism, and other forms of unethical or corrupt conduct – largely related to research on emerging markets. To date, the construction of informal networks and their cultural intertwinement and development have not been a focus of international management and organization studies, a gap that this special issue seeks to address. This special issue contributes to a better understanding of the dynamics of informal networks and their ambivalence, in which the same networks have different modes of operation and have positive and negative sides intermittently or simultaneously. We demonstrate the context in which informal networks operate, highlight their complexity, and encourage dialogue among scholars studying informal networks in a variety of countries. Using a context-based and comparative perspective allows us to conceptualize informal networks in a more integrated and balanced way. Understanding the workings of informal networking – known variously as guanxi, yongo, jentinho, wasta, and blat – in culturally specific settings, places Western values, social structures, and ideals of behavior in perspective and tests Western-centered assumptions, narratives, and theories. Because informal networking is a conventional way of conducting business in many countries, as depicted in this special issue, defining the bright (positive) and the dark (negative) sides of informal networks is critical for responsible management and business success at multinational corporations.

摘要

摘要

非正式网络被视为一种有益于个体、公司以及整个社会的积极活动，但非正式网络也可能导致共谋、拉帮结派、任人唯亲以及其他形式的不道德或腐败行为——这主要与新兴市场的研究有关。迄今为止，非正式网络的建设、文化交融以及发展并没有成为国际管理和组织研究的焦点，这是本期特刊试图解决的一个问题。这期特刊有助于更好地理解非正式网络的动态性与矛盾性，即同一网络存在不同的运作模式，且间歇或同时存在正反两面。我们论证了非正式网络运行的背景，强调了其复杂性，并鼓励来自不同国家的非正式网络学者展开对话。采用基于环境和比较的视角，我们以更加整合和平衡的方式将非正式网络概念化。在特定文化背景下，以西方价值观、社会结构和行为理念为视角，理解被熟知的guanxi, yongo, jentinho, wasta和blat这类非正式网络的运作方式，并检验西方中心的假定、叙述和理论。正如本期特刊所描述的，由于非正式网络是众多国家进行业务往来的传统方式，因此界定非正式网络光明面(积极面)与黑暗面(消极面)对跨国公司的负责任的管理和商业成功至关重要。

Аннотация

АННОТАЦИЯ

Неформальные связи можно рассматривать как позитивное явление, которое приносит пользу для отдельных лиц, компаний и общества в целом, однако неформальные связи также могут привести к сговору, коалициям, кумовству и другим формам неэтичного или коррумпированного поведения, которое имеет большое значение для исследований по развивающимся рынкам. На сегодняшний день, налаживание неформальных связей, а также их переплетение и развитие в разных культурных контекстах, не были в центре внимания исследований в области международного управления и организации, – и этому пробелу посвящен данный специальный номер журнала. Этот специальный выпуск вносит свой вклад в расширение знаний по динамике неформальных связей и их амбивалентности, при которой одни и те же связи имеют разные режимы функционирования, а также демонстрируют положительные и отрицательные стороны периодически или одновременно. Мы уделяем особое внимание контексту, в котором работают неформальные связи, подчеркиваем их сложность и поощряем диалог между учеными, которые изучают неформальные связи в различных странах. Сравнительный анализ в разных контекстах делает нашу концептуализацию неформальных связей более интегрированной и сбалансированной. Понимание действия неформального взаимодействия – известного как guanxi, yongo, jentinho, wasta и blat – в разных культурных условиях, позволяет рассмотреть западные ценности, социальные структуры и нормы поведения в широкой перспективе, а также проверить западно-ориентированные гипотезы, нарративы и теории. Поскольку неформальные связи являются традиционным способом ведения бизнеса во многих странах, как показано в этом специальном выпуске, определение светлых (положительных) и темных (отрицательных) сторон неформальных связей имеет решающее значение для ответственного управления и делового успеха в многонациональных корпорациях.

Resumen

RESUMEN

La creación de una red de conexiones informal puede ser vista como una actividad positiva con resultados benéficos para los individuos, las empresas y la sociedad en su conjunto, pero la interconexión informal puede también llevar a la colusión, mafias, nepotismo, y otras formas de conducta poco éticas o corruptas – principalmente relacionada con la investigación sobre mercados emergentes. Hasta la fecha, la construcción de redes informales y su entrelazamiento y desarrollo cultural no ha sido centro de la gestión internacional o los estudios organizacionales, una brecha que este número especial busca darle atención. Este número especial contribuye a comprender mejor las dinámicas de las redes informales y su ambivalencia, en la cual las mismas redes tienen diferentes modos de operación y tienen lados positivos y negativos intermitentemente o simultáneamente. Demostramos que el contexto en el cual las redes informales operan, resalta su complejidad, y fomenta el dialogo entre los académicos que estudian las redes informales en una variedad de países. Usando una perspectiva contextual y comparativa nos permite conceptualizar redes informales en una manera más integrada y balanceada. Entender el funcionamiento de la creación de una red de conexiones informal -conocidas como guanxi, yongo, jentinho, wasta, y blat, en entornos culturalmente específicos, pone a los valores Occidentales, las estructuras sociales, y los ideales de comportamiento en perspectiva y pone a prueba las soposiciones, narrativas y teorías. Debido a que la creación de redes informales es una manera convencional de hacer negocios en muchos países, cómo se describe en este número especial, definiendo los lados iluminado (positivo) y oscuro (negativo) de las redes informales es fundamental para la gestión responsable y el éxito empresarial en las corporaciones multinacionales.

Keywords

blat/svyazidark side/bright side debatefunctional ambivalenceguanxiinformal institutionsinformal networksmoral ambiguitynetworking social capitalwastayongoblat/svyazi阴暗面/光明面争论功能矛盾性guanxi非正式制度非正式网络道德模糊网络社会资本wastayongoблат/связидискуссия о темной стороне/светлой сторонефункциональная амбивалентностьguanxiнеформальные институтынеформальные связиморальная неопределенностьсоциальный капитал сетевых связейwastayongoblat/svyazidebate lado oscuro/iluminadoambivalencia funcionalguanxiinstituciones informalesredess informalesambigüedad moralcapital social de relacionamientowastayongo
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 16 , Special Issue 3: Informal Networks: Dark Sides, Bright Sides, and Unexplored Dimensions , July 2020 , pp. 511 - 542
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Editor-in-Chief Arie Y. Lewin

References

REFERENCES

Abdul Wahab, E. A., Jamaludin, M. F., Agustia, D., & Harymawan, I. 2020. Director networks, political connections, and earnings quality in Malaysia. Management and Organization Review, 16(3): doi: 10.1017/mor.2020.26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abosag, I., & Lee, J.-W. 2013. The formation of trust and commitment in business relationships in the Middle East: Understanding Et-Moone relationships. International Business Review, 22(3): 602–614.Google Scholar
Abosag, I., Yen, D. A., & Barnes, B. R. 2016. What is dark about the dark side of business relationships? Industrial Marketing Management, 55(May): 5–9.10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.02.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afiouni, F., & Nakhle, S., 2016. Human resource management in Lebanon. In Budhwar, P. S. and Mellahi, K. (Eds.), Handbook of human resource management in the Middle East: 180–204. London: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Hussan, F. B., Al-Husan, F. B., & Fletcher-Chen, C. C.-Y. 2014. Environmental factors influencing the management of key accounts in an Arab Middle Eastern context. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(4): 592–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ali, S., & Weir, D. 2020. Wasta: Advancing a holistic model to bridge the micro-macro divide. Management and Organization Review, 16(3): doi: 10.1017/mor.2020.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E., & Jap, S. D. 2005. The dark side of close relationships. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(3): 75–82.Google Scholar
Apaydin, M., Thornberry, J., & Sidani, Y. M. 2020. Informal social networks as intermediaries in foreign markets. Management and Organization Review, 16(3): doi: 10.1017/mor.2020.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, A., Yandle, B., & Naufal, G. 2013. Regulation, trust, and cronyism in Middle Eastern societies: The simple economics of ‘wasta’. Journal of Socio-Economics, 44(1): 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. 2001. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4): 323–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, R., Herstein, R., McCarthy, D., & Puffer, S. 2019. Doing favors in the Arab world. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 14(5): 916–943.10.1108/IJOEM-06-2018-0292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bian, Y. 1997. Bringing strong ties back in: Indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China. American Sociological Review, 62(3): 366–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bian, Y. 2017. The comparative significance of guanxi. Management and Organization Review, 13(2): 261–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bian, Y. 2018. The prevalence and the increasing significance of guanxi. China Quarterly, 235: 597–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bian, Y. 2019. Guanxi, how China works. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1986. The forms of capital. In Richardson, J. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education ,241–258. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. M. 1965. An economic theory of clubs. Economica, 32: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. 1995. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2): 339–365.10.2307/2393923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S. 2000. The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22: 345–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S. 2001. Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In Lin, N., Cook, K., & Burt, R. S. (Eds.), Social Capital: Theory and Research, 31–56. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S., & Burzynska, K. 2017. Chinese entrepreneurs, social networks, and guanxi. Management and Organization Review, 13(2): 221–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzynska, K., & Opper, S. 2020. Interbank relations, environmental uncertainty, and corporate credit access in China. Management and Organization Review, 16(3): doi: 10.1017/mor.2020.25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. 2020. The state-owned enterprises as an identity: The influence of institutional logics on guanxi behavior. Management and Organization Review, 16(3): doi: 10.1017/mor.2020.14.Google Scholar
Chen, C. C., & Chen, X. P. 2009. Negative externalities of close guanxi within organizations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(1): 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C.C., Chen, X. P., & Huang, S. 2013. Chinese guanxi: An integrative review and new directions for future research. Management and Organization Review, 9(1): 167–207.10.1111/more.12010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: 95–120.10.1086/228943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, K. 2006. Clan politics and regime transition in Central Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cooley, C. H. 1956. Human nature and the social order. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fey, C. F., & Denison, D. R. 2003. Organizational culture and effectiveness: Can American theory be applied in Russia? Organization Science, 14(6): 686–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6): 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, M. 1995. Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, M. 2017. Society and economy: Framework and principles. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674977792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayson, K., & Ambler, T. 1999. The dark side of long-term relationships in marketing services. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1): 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, F. F., Hung, K., & Tse, D. K. 2008. When does guanxi matter? Issues of capitalization and its dark sides. Journal of Marketing, 72(4): 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guha-Khasnobis, B., Kanbur, R., & Ostrom, E. 2006. Linking the formal and informal economy: Concepts and policies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. 2010. Civic capital as the missing link. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 15845. Available from URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. 2004. Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4): 725–740.Google Scholar
Hennart, J.-F. 2015. Leveraging Asian institutions to deepen theory: A transaction cost perspective on relational governance. Asian Business & Management, 14(4): 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. 2002. The evolution of institutions: An agenda for future theoretical research. Constitutional Political Economy, 13(2): 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homans, G. C. 1950. The human group. Oxford: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Horak, S. 2017. The informal dimension of human resource management in Korea: Yongo, recruiting practices, and career progression. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(10): 1409–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, S., & Klein, A. 2016. Persistence of informal social networks in East Asia: Evidence from South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(3): 673–694.Google Scholar
Horak, S., & Taube, M. 2016. Same but different? Similarities and fundamental differences of informal social networks in China (guanxi) and Korea (yongo). Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(3): 595–616.Google Scholar
Horak, S., Taube, M., Yang, I., & Restel, K. 2019. Two not of a kind: Social network theory and informal social networks in East Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36: 349–372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9602-zGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, K., & Weir, D. 2006a. Guanxi and wasta: A comparison. Thunderbird International Business Review, 48(1): 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, K., & Weir, D. 2006b. Understanding networking in China and the Arab world: Lessons for international managers. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(4): 272–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, X., Liu, H., Fey, C. F., & Wang, G. 2019. Entrepreneurial orientation, network resource acquisition, and firm performance: A network approach. Journal of Business Research, 87(June): 46–57.10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.02.021Google Scholar
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. 1966. The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Khalaf, S., & Khalaf, R.S. 2008. Arab society and culture: An essential reader. London: Saqi.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.-H. 2000. Emergence of the network society: Trends, new challenges, and an implication for network capitalism. Korea Journal, 40(3): 161–184.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. T. 2007. Korean elites: Social networks and power. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 37(1): 19–37.10.1080/00472330601104482Google Scholar
Klaes, M., & Esther-Mirjam, S. 2005. A conceptual history of the emergence of bounded rationality. History of Political Economy, 37(1): 27–59.10.1215/00182702-37-1-27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubbe, I. 2018. Vitamin B. In Ledeneva, A., A. Bailey, S. Barron, C. Curro, & E. Teague (Eds.), The global encyclopaedia of informality: Understanding social and cultural complexity , Vol. 1: 91–94. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Larson, A., & Starr, J. A. 1993. A network model of organization formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(2): 5–15.Google Scholar
Ledeneva, A. 1998. Russia's economy of favours: Blat, networking, and informal exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ledeneva, A. 2006. Ambiguity of social networks in post-communist contexts: A topographical map. In Bittner, R., Hackenbroich, W., & Vockler, K. (Eds.), Transit spaces: 300–339. Berlin: Jovis Bauhaus.Google Scholar
Ledeneva, A. 2008. Blat and guanxi: Informal practices in Russia and China. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 50(1): 118–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledeneva, A. 2018. Introduction: The informal view of the world–Key challenges and main findings of the Global Informality Project. In Ledeneva, A., Bailey, A., Barron, S., Curro, C., & Teague, E. et al. (Eds.), The global encyclopaedia of informality: Understanding social and cultural complexity, Vol. 1: 1–27. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Ledeneva, A., Bailey, A., Barron, S., Curro, C., & Teague, E. 2018. The global encyclopaedia of informality: Understanding social and cultural complexity. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Lee, S., & Brinton, M. C. 1996. Elite education and social capital: The case of South Korea. Sociology of Education, 69(3): 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi-Strauss, C. 1969. The elementary structures of kinship. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Lew, S. C. 2013. The Korean economic developmental path: Confucian tradition, affective network. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 2007a. Guanxi as the Chinese norm for personalized social capital: toward an integrated duality framework of informal exchange. In Yeoung, H. W. (Ed.), Handbook of research on Asian Business: 62–83. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Li, P. P. 2007b. Social tie, social capital, and social behavior: Toward an integrative model of informal exchange. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(2): 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 2012. Toward an integrative framework of indigenous research: The geocentric implications of yin-yang balance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(4): 849–872.Google Scholar
Li, P. P., Zhou, S. S., Zhou, A. J., & Yang, Z. 2019. Reconceptualizing and redirecting research on guanxi: ‘Guan-xi’ interaction to form a multicolored Chinese knot. Management and Organization Review, 15(3): 643–677.Google Scholar
Lin, N. 2001. Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luo, Y. 2000. Guanxi and business. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y. 2008. The changing Chinese culture and business behavior: The perspective of intertwinement between guanxi and corruption. International Business Review, 17(2): 188–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1976. Sociological ambivalence and other essays. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Minbaeva, D. B., & Muratbekova-Touron, M. 2013. Clanism: Definition and implications for human resource management. Management International Review, 53(1): 109–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, I., & Von Krogh, G., 2009. Perspective–tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3): 635–652.10.1287/orsc.1080.0412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, D. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, D. 1991. Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (1): 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opper, S., Nee, V., & Holm, H. J. 2017. Risk aversion and guanxi activities: A behavioral analysis of CEOs in China. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4): 1504–1530.Google Scholar
Park, R. E. 1924. The concept of social distance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 8: 339–344.Google Scholar
Park, C. L., Nunes, M. F., Muratbekova-Touron, M., & Moatti, V. 2018. The duality of the Brazilian jeitinho. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 14(4): 404–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pejovich, S. 1999. Interaction of formal and informal institutions on social stability and economic development. Journal of Markets & Morality, 2(2): 164–181.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W., Pinkham, B., Sun, S. L., & Chen, H. 2009. The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4): 63–81.10.5465/amp.2009.43479264Google Scholar
Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. 2011. Two decades of Russian business and management research: An institutional theory perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(2): 21–36.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. 1993. Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. 1995. Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1): 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, X. 2013. Guanxi, social capital theory and beyond: Toward a globalized social science. British Journal of Sociology, 64(2): 308–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ren, S., Chadee, D., & Presbitero, A. 2020. Career performance in China: The moderating role of cultural intelligence. Management and Organization Review, 16(3): doi: 10.1017/mor.2020.16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renshaw, J. R. 2011. Korean women managers and corporate culture: Challenging tradition, choosing empowerment, creating change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sandler, T., & Tschirhart, J. 1997. Club theory: Thirty years later. Public Choice, 93(3): 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, Y. 2010. Are Asian sociologies possible? Universalism versus particularism. In Burawoy, M., Chang, M., & Hsieh, M. F. (Eds.), Facing an unequal world: Challenges for a global sociology: 192–200. Taipei: Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica and Council of National Associations of International Sociological Association.Google Scholar
Sato, Y. 2018. Aidagara. In Ledeneva, A., Bailey, A., Barron, S., Curro, C., & Teague, E. et al. (Eds.), The global encyclopaedia of informality: Understanding social and cultural complexity , Vol. 1: 100–102. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Scott, R. 2004a. Reflections on a half-century of organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 30: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, , R. 2004b. Institutional theory. In Ritzer, G. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social theory: 408–414. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Shekshnia, S., Ledeneva, A., & Denisova-Schmidt, E., 2017. Managing business corruption: targeting non-compliant practices in systemically corrupt environments. Slavonic & East European Review, 95(1): 151–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmel, G. 1950. The sociology of Georg Simmel. Translated and edited by Wolff, Kurt. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1957. Models of Man. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Smith, P. B., Torres, C., Leong, C. H., Budhwar, P., Achoui, M., & Lebedeva, N. 2012. Are indigenous approaches to achieving influence in business organizations distinctive? A comparative study of guanxi, wasta, jeitinho, svyazi and pulling strings. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(2): 333–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L., & Fombrun, C. 1979. Social network analysis for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 4(4): 507–519.Google Scholar
van Zanten, A., & Maxwell, C. 2015. Elite education and the state in France: Durable ties and new challenges. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(1): 71–94.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. 1979. Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2): 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O. 1996. The mechanisms of governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yakubovich, V. 2005. Weak ties, information, and influence: How workers find jobs in a local Russian labor market. American Sociological Review, 70(3): 408–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar