Search

This paper investigates dynamic changes in instrumental (i.e., work‐related) tie‐seeking patterns and the structure of a communication network following a downsizing event—whereby many employees are simultaneously eliminated from a network. Our analysis spans a two‐year period and applies a resource‐ and network‐change approach to examine how survivors develop revised resource‐acquisition strategies while repositioning themselves after a downsizing. Our results demonstrate that two temporary logics of tie formation—a suspension of within‐unit homophily and a preference for seeking ties with long‐tenured employees—help employees acquire betweenness centrality during the disruption period. Specifically, we find that disruption initiates a transitional period after downsizing in which new tie‐making logics are employed, including seeking out ties with long‐tenured employees and employees outside of one's department. We observed post‐disruption, during the stabilization period after downsizing, where logics used for tie‐making in the disruption period were abandoned, pre‐disruption tie‐making logics were resumed, and betweenness centrality remained relatively constant. We discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of these results and suggest future research directions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The generative perspective in therapy understands relations and dialogue as a generative social space where participants can promote innovative resources and possibilities for themselves, and their relations and circumstances, along with new social ecologies. It focuses on the creative dimensions of human relationality. This epistemological and clinical perspective has a heuristic value that allows us to discern and work with micro dialogues—micro processes of creative, generative dialogues—in the ongoing dialogue, mindful of the opportunities for creativity and innovation they provide. The generative perspective promotes creative processes and transformations to help clients build possible and viable futures when faced with problems, conflicts and challenges. It involves the dialogical and relational co‐creation of resources and possibilities, and actions for implementation. The perspective is illustrated with a therapy process involving a 3‐year follow‐up. The paper includes a section where differences and similarities between dialogical perspectives are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]