Abstract:The study analyzes the social structure of competition. It addresses the consequences of voids in relational and resource networks. Competitive behavior can be understood in terms of player access to "holes" in the social structure of the competitive arena. Those "structural holes" are network gaps between players which create entrepreneurial opportunities for information access, timing, referrals, and for control. A player brings capital to the competitive arena and walks away with profit determined by the rate of return where the capital was invested. The rate of return is keyed to the social structure of the competitive arena. Each player brings three kinds of capital to the competitive arena: financial capital, such as money and investments; human capital, such as his or her natural qualities and skills; and social capital, i.e. networks of other players. Social capital is the final determinant of competitive success. Something about the structure of a player's network (his or her relations with other players, such as colleagues, friends, and clients), and the location of the player's network in the structure of the arena defines the player's chances of getting higher rates of return. These chances are enhanced by two kinds of network benefits for those who can exploit structural holes: information and control. Opportunities for success are many, but it is information that plays a central role in seizing them; structural holes determine who knows about opportunities, what they know, and who gets to participate. Structural holes also generate control benefits, giving certain players an advantage in negotiating their relationships. Following sociological theory, a player who derives benefit from structural holes by brokering relationships between other conflicted players is called tertius gaudens. The essential tension in tertius strategies is not hostility of participants, but rather uncertainty; no one has absolute authority in the relationship under negotiation. The findings of empirical research indicate that structural holes are advantageous to suppliers and customers, but not to producers in their negotiated transactions, because suppliers and customers benefit from competition among producers. The information and control benefits of structural holes are advantageous to managers, and the managers who develop those benefits are an asset to the firm employing them. Managers with networks rich in structural holes often reach promotion faster. Hole effects are most evident for managers operating on a social frontier, i.e. in places where two social worlds meet. Social frontiers involve continual negotiations of the expectations of the manager and those of the people across the frontier, and thus more entrepreneurial skill is required. The most serious frontier is the political boundary between top leadership and the rest of the firm. To move up the corporate ladder, a manager has to transform his or her frame of reference from that of an employee protected by the firm, to that of a leader responsible for the firm. The findings also indicate that women and entry-rank men tend to be promoted earlier because they build hierarchical networks around a strategic partner who helps them break into higher ranks. Although the reported differences between the manager networks have clear implications for promotions, there are no differences among managers in their tendencies to have one network rather than another, which is especially striking with respect to the sex and rank differences that are observed to be important in distinguishing network effects. Structural holes provide a theoretical connection between micro and macro levels of sociological analysis. The structural hole argument extends other theories, such as personality theory, interface theory of markets and population ecology, and resource dependence and transaction cost theory

Managing Personal Networks: an Examination of How High Self-Monitors Achieve Better Job Performance

Does Monitoring Promote or Impair Employee Job Performance and Wellbeing: A Motivational Perspective

A multiplex view of leadership structure in management teams

Embedding Networks and Employee’s Retention – the Moderating Effects of Personal Values

The Relationship Between High Performance Work Systems And Organizational Performance: Entrepreneurial Networks As Negative Moderator

Influence of Subordinates' and Supervisors' Network Positions on the Effect of Abusive Supervision

Relative Leader-member Exchange and Unethical Pro-leader Behavior: A Cross-level Moderated Mediation

Is Being Connected to Leaders Always Beneficial? Instrumental Interaction and the Development of Social Capital Within Organisational Networks

Examining The Role Of Personal Identification With The Leader In Leadership Effectiveness: A Partial Nomological Network

How do employees build and maintain relationships with leaders? Development and validation of the workplace upward networking scale

Supervisors' upward exchange relationships and subordinate outcomes: testing the multilevel mediation role of empowerment.

Empowering or Burdening? the Short-Lived Benefits and Costs of Upward Networking at Work

When Brokers May Not Work: the Cultural Contingency of Social Capital in Chinese High-tech Firms

Relative Leader-Member Exchange and Unethical Pro-leader Behavior: the Role of Envy and Distributive Justice Climate

Does Employee Humility Foster Performance and Promotability? Exploring the Mechanisms Oflmxand Peer Network Centrality in China

Role stress, emotional exhaustion, and knowledge hiding: The joint moderating effects of network centrality and structural holes

The Double-edged Sword Effects of Job Insecurity on Supervisor-rated Performance

Uncovering the impact of triadic relationships within a team on job performance: an application of balance theory in predicting feedback‐seeking behaviour

Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition

Multilevel networks and status attainment

Cognitive Flexibility and Advice Network Centrality: the Moderating Role of Self-Monitoring.