In the management consulting world we always look at multiple relations. We
usually map 3 - 8 relations and then look at their similarities, differences,
and various combinations of them. From my experience, in general, more than 8
relations tends to bring on survey fatigue and confusion.
For instance we may look at...
* who has a Hierarchical tie [one node reports to the other] and no Task tie.
For manager levels and above: who has a Hierarchical tie and no Strategy tie?
* who has a Task tie and a Grapevine/Informal tie? Since these two usually
correlate [except in recently merged or reorganized companies] we often look at
who has one relation but not the other.
* who has an Innovation tie and who has a Customer Voice tie? Hopefully
customer feedback is getting into the conversations of how to improve/innovate.
We may combine these two relations into one network before measuring it.
* after reviewing the maps and metrics, if management believes that two
groups/deparments/teams should be interacting more around X, then we will look
for possible bridges between the groups based on existing multiple relations.
Easier to make an existing tie multiplex then generating a new one is a pretty
safe rule of thumb [but like all rules of thumb it does not work always!]
We also look at relations over time... how have various relations changed since
the merger? We may take 3-6 month snapshots for up to 2 years.
There are countless ways of looking at multiple relations in an organization...
each new project brings a different focus and a different set of combinations.
The important point is to look at multiple relations -- multiple views provide
a much richer picture of what is really happening in the
Amir Sasson wrote:
> Dear all,
> Can anybody quote some important references on multiple relations,
> especially the seminal article dealing with this topic?
> Thank you so much
> Amir Sasson
> Doctoral Candidate
> The Norwegian School of Management, BI
> Sandvika, Norway
> Tel: 00-47-67-55-72-73