role innovation through employee social networks: the embedded nature of roles and their effect on...

http://opr.sagepub.com/Organizational Psychology Review

http://opr.sagepub.com/content/1/4/339The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/2041386611411230

2011 1: 339 originally published online 15 September 2011Organizational Psychology ReviewFederico Aime, Linn Van Dyne and Oleg V. Petrenko

and their effect on job satisfaction and career successRole innovation through employee social networks: The embedded nature of roles

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology

can be found at:Organizational Psychology ReviewAdditional services and information for

http://opr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://opr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://opr.sagepub.com/content/1/4/339.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 15, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Nov 10, 2011Version of Record >>

at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://opr.sagepub.com/

http://opr.sagepub.com/content/1/4/339

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.eawop.org/web/

http://opr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://opr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://opr.sagepub.com/content/1/4/339.refs.html

http://opr.sagepub.com/content/1/4/339.full.pdf

http://opr.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/14/2041386611411230.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Article

Role innovation throughemployee social networks:The embedded nature ofroles and their effect on jobsatisfaction and career success

Federico AimeOklahoma State University

Linn Van DyneMichigan State University

Oleg V. PetrenkoOklahoma State University

AbstractWe theorize that the location of individual actors in the context of the larger social network withinthe organization has important but to date overlooked implications for employee role innova-tions. Complementing past research that places primary emphasis on individual predictors ofrole innovations, we developed arguments about the nature of basic characteristics of the socialstructure (the nature of distal and proximal ties) as resources that provide employees with thepotential to be innovative about their roles in ways that enhance job satisfaction and careersuccess.

Keywordscareers, groups/teams, job design, social networks

Paper received 7 March 2011; revised version accepted 2 May 2011.

A top manager of a large global service firm

praised her company’’s evaluation process

because it was ‘‘the best aid for identifying

management material.’’ Specifically, she

added, the evaluation system documented in-

stances when employees ‘‘redefined their

Corresponding author:

Federico Aime, Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Organizational Psychology Review1(4) 339–361

ª The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/2041386611411230

opr.sagepub.com

OrganizationalPsychologyReview

at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from


positions in meaningful ways’’ and/or ‘‘adapted

their organizational roles in ways that showed

an understanding of corporate objectives.’’

Based on in-depth discussions of these evalua-

tions, employees were promoted or singled out

as ‘‘management material’’ with significant

implications for their careers.

These lines illustrate the importance of

enacted roles for individuals and for organiza-

tions. At the individual level, people enact their

roles in ways that allow them to meet their

needs and desires, redefine their positions, and

advance their careers (Baker & Faulkner, 1991;

Collier & Callero, 2005). These enacted roles

thus become resources to employees. Although

traditional approaches view roles as enacted

from a position (Linton, 1936), we adopt the

more novel perspective that roles are claimed

by employees and then enacted into positions

(Baker & Faulkner, 1991). Thus employees

proactively use their enacted roles as resources

to develop social, symbolic, and material

capital that allow them to improve their job

satisfaction and career success (Callero, 1994;

Fine, 1996).

At the organizational level, dynamic

competition, the need to do more with less,

and overstretched talent pools have lead to

flattened organizational hierarchies where

employees are expected to enact roles without

regard to traditional organizational and job

boundaries (Cappelli et al., 1997). For example,

Bridges (1995) describes ‘‘job shifts’’ as reac-

tions to escalating change and uncertainty

where fixed positions dissolve into emergent

roles. Consistent with this view, uncertain and

changing work environments produce emergent

elements that are added to established roles to

enhance organizational effectiveness (Griffin,

Neal, & Parker, 2007).

As more organizations emphasize emergent

roles as mechanisms to maximize their effec-

tiveness in increasingly dynamic competitive

environments, it is important to consider

how an employee’s social network structure

influences employee opportunities to engage

in role innovations. To date, however, most

research on predictors of role innovation focus

on job discretion and individual differences

(Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007).

Although job discretion is traditionally viewed

as an enabler of role innovation, results are

mixed (see Ashforth & Saks, 1995; Nicholson

& West, 1988, for supporting evidence; and

Munton & West, 1995, for opposing evi-

dence). Likewise, even though research shows

that individual differences such as skills,

knowledge, need for growth, and desire for

control can enhance role innovation (Nichol-

son & West, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994), these

individual-difference predictors have limited

explanatory power due to the limits of talent

pools available to the organizations (Cappelli

et al., 1997).

If one takes the perspective that individual

role innovations are merely aggregated from the

micro level to the macro level, then organiza-

tions with many actors with individual charac-

teristics that favor role innovation should be able

to maximize their effectiveness in dynamic

competitive environments. This approach, how-

ever, is problematic because it is equivalent to

stating that effective organizations are those that

are already rich in the knowledge, skills, and

abilities that facilitate role innovation. Taking a

different approach, we stress the importance of

structural factors that can influence role inno-

vations. Thus we focus on the location of indi-

vidual actors in the context of the larger social

structure of the organization. We refer to this as

‘‘employee embeddedness.’’ We suggest that

employee embeddedness has implications for

role innovations, which have implications for job

satisfaction and career success.

The objective of this paper is to present a

theoretical model that links characteristics of

employee embeddedness with role innovations

to subsequent effects on job satisfaction and

career success. We theorize that fundamental

structural characteristics (the nature of distal

and proximal ties) provide employees with the

potential to be proactive in three different types

340 Organizational Psychology Review 1(4)



of role innovations: innovation in role beha-

viors, innovation in role cognitions, and inno-

vation in role sets. Consistent with the example

at the beginning of this paper, we then argue

that these role innovations have differential

effects on job satisfaction and career success.

Role innovation can occur in at least three

different ways. First, role innovation includes

personalizing a role to suit the agent, including

changes in expected work behaviors ‘‘ranging

from minor initiatives such as variations in

work schedules to more dramatic role innova-

tions such as changes in the main goals of the

organizational work’’ (Nicholson & West,

1988, p. 106). Second, role innovation includes

changes in employee cognitions. From an

interactionist perspective, employees can use

their role cognitions as proxies for making

sense of the relationship between self and the

social context (Callero, 1994). Third, role inno-

vation also includes changes in relationships

with others (Grant & Hofmann, 2011). This can

occur through negotiation of role relationships,

and it results in changes in role sets—those an

employee interacts with regularly in the course

of performing the job (Katz & Kahn, 1978). In

sum, we define role innovation to include

employee changes in role behaviors, role cog-

nitions, and role sets. Each of these represents a

modification of the employee’s position in the

contextualized social structure.

Few employees function with total indepen-

dence (Wageman, 1995). Instead, work is

increasingly interdependent because most orga-

nizations rely on teams and workgroups (Ilgen,

1999). At the same time, organizations empha-

size the importance of employee initiative and

proactive behavior as critical for timely respon-

ses to changing competitive demands (Crant,

2000). Combining these ideas, we focus our

theorizing on the structural factors of network

ties within the social context at work as factors

that to date have been overlooked in models of

role innovation (Burt, 1997; Salancik & Pfeffer,

1978). Our model thus goes beyond prior work

by emphasizing structural factors as having

potentially profound influences on employee

role behaviors, role cognitions, and role sets.

This model should therefore complement prior

models that focus primarily on individual factors

predicting role innovations.

Employee embeddedness

We use the term ‘‘embeddedness’’ to represent

the location of individual actors in the context

of the larger social structure of the organization

(Dacin, Ventresca, & Beal, 1999) and define it

broadly as the degree to which actors and their

behaviors are linked to the social context (Lee,

Mitchell, Sablinski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004),

in our case the work context. We start with the

core premise that employee role perceptions—

that is, their perceptions about their role

behaviors, role cognitions, and role sets—are

influenced by the mutual coordination that

occurs within the organizational context. Social

ties in organizations reflect interdependencies

among formal positions (as defined by work-

flow diagrams and organizational charts) as

well as informal interdependencies (personal

relationships between individuals). As Podolny

and Baron (1997) observe, formal organiza-

tional roles (workflow and reporting relation-

ships) create task interdependencies, resource

flows, and opportunities for contact such that

employees ‘‘inherit’’ networks based on formal

organizational positions. In addition, informal

interdependence emerges among specific em-

ployees. Thus our model recognizes both for-

mal and informal ties.

More important, we differentiate interac-

tions that occur within the immediate work-

group from interactions that occur across units,

across hierarchical levels, and beyond orga-

nizational boundaries. Thus we position

proximal and distal ties as two separate con-

structs because viewing ties on a continuum

ranging from proximal to distal can obscure

fundamental differences in the resources pro-

vided to employees by proximal ties compared

to distal ties.

Aime et al. 341



We define proximal ties as interactions

that are internal to the immediate workgroup

as opposed to those that are external (Burt,

2003). Drawing on social network research,

we further specify proximal ties as based on

formal structural cohesion and equivalence

(Burt, 2003). Formal structural cohesion is

represented by workgroup task interdependence

and workflow interactions (Brass, 1984). For

example, proximal ties include day-to-day

negotiations among workgroup peers about

who will perform specific role behaviors. This

interdependence is local and focused on the

immediate workgroup. Structural equivalence

occurs when group members have similar roles

in the required workflow network in a work-

group (Burt, 2003). For example, employees

are structurally equivalent when proximal ties

represent redundant work interactions shared

by members of a workgroup that reports to the

same supervisor (Lorrain & White, 1971).

Proximal ties are often redundant because

workgroups tend to operate as bounded social

systems with shared interdependencies.

We define distal ties as work-related

interactions outside the immediate workgroup.

Distal ties can be based on formal relationships

or informal relationships. Since distal ties go

beyond the immediate workgroup (Brass,

1984; Podolny & Baron, 1997), they are not

necessarily shared with others in the proximal

group. For example, an employee might have

a tie with an employee in another subunit in the

department that is not shared with others in the

workgroup (e.g., a loan analyst’s relationship

with a credit-rating specialist in a different

section of the same loan-processing depart-

ment). Alternatively, an employee might have

a cross-functional tie across departments (e.g.,

a loan analyst’s relationship with an employee

in the bond department), a vertical tie across

hierarchical levels (e.g., a loan analyst’s rela-

tionship with the vice president of the loan divi-

sion), or an external tie across organizational

boundaries (a loan analyst’s relationship with

analysts in other organizations). Each of these

represents a distal tie since they extend beyond

the immediate workgroup. Distal ties are espe-

cially important to role innovation, as we

argue in more detail later, because they are

more likely to provide access to nonredundant

information and relationships compared to

proximal ties.

It is important to note that we adopt the

proximal and distal ties terminology to repre-

sent a broader conceptualization of distance

between agents or employees than that repre-

sented for example in the use of intra or inter-

teams ties that is found in the teams literature

(Oh, Chung, & Labianca, 2004; Oh, Labianca,

& Chung, 2006). Proximal and distal refer to

separation across a broad set of organizational

boundaries. The separation can be between

teams but also between basic functional work-

groups, departments, functional areas and other

particular organizational groupings. When we

refer in our theorizing to within and outside the

workgroup we specifically intend to make our

theorizing generalizable to a broad set of

potential organizational groupings. For exam-

ple, an intrateam tie within a cross-functional

team (consisting of employees from different

functional areas within a firm) would be a dis-

tal tie for the tie holders with respect to their

functional areas even if it may be proximal

with respect to their cross-functional team.

Such a tie will have different implications for

role innovation for these tie holders with

respect to their functional areas and their

cross-functional team.

Proximal and distal ties can be used to

describe the embeddedness of an employee in

the context of the larger social structure of the

organization. We suggest, however, that it is

also important to consider the strength of these

ties because strong ties have different implica-

tions for role innovation. Strength of ties is the

level of emotional affect in a relationship

(Granovetter, 1973; Higgins & Kram, 2001).

Strong ties are characterized by intensity, clo-

seness, and ongoing relationships that involve

commitment and investment, empathy and




unconditional regard, and intimacy (Cramer,

1986; Lund, 1985). Thus, our conceptualization

of strong ties is not based on frequency of

interaction. Instead, even though interaction may

lead to development of strong ties (Brass,

Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004; Festinger,

Schachter, & Back, 1950), frequency of inter-

action does not necessarily represent more than a

weak tie. For example, an employee might

interact regularly with a workgroup peer and yet

maintain a strictly formal relationship char-

acterized by low liking and distrust. Likewise, an

employee might interact regularly with someone

outside the workgroup and never develop a close

or intense personal relationship.

Considering strength of ties allows us to

refine the notion of proximal and distal ties.

When work ties (either proximal or distal) are

strong, personal liking and trust create informal

interdependence (Marsden & Campbell, 1984;

Podonly & Baron, 1997). Strong ties enhance

employees’ influence both directly (through

proximal personal persuasion) and indirectly

(through use of distal information and external

support). Weak ties are less intense, less per-

sonal, less reciprocal, and more substitutable

(Granovetter, 1973, 1982; Lin, Ensel, &

Vaughn, 1981b). Strength of ties is therefore

based on informal aspects of relationships.

Strong ties are not a function of formal inter-

dependence and thus can apply to proximal

and/or distal ties.

Differences in resources providedby strong proximal and distal ties

As noted above, we differentiate proximal

interactions that occur within the immediate

workgroup from distal interactions that occur

across units, across hierarchical levels, and

beyond organizational boundaries. This is an

important contribution of our theorizing because

different types of ties provide employees with

different types of resources and different oppor-

tunities to engage in role innovation. Specifically,

strong proximal ties provide opportunities to

influence others in the immediate workgroup

(Cote & Hideg, 2011). In contrast, strong distal

ties provide access to information and third-party

support that can be used to influence those in the

proximal workgroup and/or in other parts of the

organization. These differences in access to

resources are the causal mechanisms on which

we draw later in the paper to propose differential

effects of strong proximal compared to strong dis-

tal ties on role innovations. Table 1 contrasts the

mechanisms provided by strong proximal and

distal ties and becomes the basis for the proposi-

tions we develop in the next section.

Employee embeddedness and roleinnovations

The focus of our work is on employees’

opportunities for role innovation and its social

network antecedents. We start developing our

model by focusing on the resources provided by

strong distal ties. We then shift our focus to the

resources provided by strong proximal ties and

conclude this section by considering the joint

(interactive) effects of strong distal ties com-

bined with strong proximal ties. In general our

arguments differentiate resources available to

employees through different network positions

and the opportunities for role innovation that

they derive from such network configurations.

Figure 1 summarizes our model and proposed

relationships.

Role innovation and distal ties

Innovation in role behaviors at work is defined

as innovation in work behaviors ‘‘ranging from

minor initiatives such as variations in work

schedules, to more dramatic role innovations

such as changes in the main goals of the orga-

nizational work’’ (Nicholson & West, 1988, p.

106). Innovative role behaviors include changes

in role breadth (Parker, 1998) and suggested

changes in practices used to accomplish the

work (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). In addition,

some employees are proactive and exercise

Aime et al. 343



Tab

le1.

Em

plo

yee

embed

ded

nes

sm

echan

ism

sfo

rro

lein

nova

tion

Ro

leIn

no

vati

on

s

Ob

jecti

ve

care

er

success

Typ

eo

fre

lati

on

ship

Natu

reo

fem

plo

yee

em

bed

ded

ness

Cau

sal

mech

an

ism

sC

han

ges

inro

leb

eh

avio

rsC

han

ges

inro

leco

gn

itio

ns

Ch

an

ges

inro

lese

ts

Mai

nef

fect

s

Stro

ng

dis

talties

Acc

ess

toin

form

atio

nan

dth

ird-p

arty

support

P1A

P1B

P1C

Stro

ng

pro

xim

alties

Influ

ence

inw

ork

group

P2

––

Inte

ract

ion

effe

cts

Stro

ng

pro

xim

alties�

Stro

ng

dis

talties

Join

tef

fect

sth

atch

ange

the

nat

ure

ofth

ere

lationsh

ips

P6B

Inno

vatio

n in

Rol

e Se

ts

H S

ocia

l Cre

dent

ials

L S

ocia

l Cre

dent

ials

L

HD

ista

l Tie

s

P3C

W

W

S

S

Dis

tal T

ies

P3B

W

W S

S

Dis

tal T

ies

P3A

W

W S

S

344 at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from


personal initiative (Crant, 2000) to engage in

role making (Graen, 1976) or task revision

(Staw & Boettger, 1990) where they change the

nature of their role behaviors.

When employees have strong distal ties,

these close personal relationships with indi-

viduals outside the core workgroup provide

them with opportunities to obtain information

and third-party support that is not readily avail-

able from within the core workgroup, which

then become valuable resources that can be

used as input for innovative role behaviors. For

example, strong distal ties allow employees to

expand their social capital. An expanded net-

work of close personal ties with those outside

the immediate workgroup should facilitate

access to nonredundant information that can

be used for innovation in role behaviors

(Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). In addition, strong

distal ties provide access to increased external

support (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). For exam-

ple, an employee can obtain support from indi-

viduals outside the workgroup that is often

viewed as more ‘‘objective’’ and should be use-

ful for influencing others in the workgroup and

legitimizing innovation in role behaviors.

The literature on ties and information

takes two contrasting positions as to the value

of weak and strong ties. Early social network

research typically implies that strong ties

represent shared access to social resources

(redundancy) and weak ties represent access to

nonredundant information useful for bridging

structural holes (Granovetter, 1973). More

recent approaches, however, take the position

that nonredundant ties are not necessarily weak

ties (Higgins & Kram, 2001). When individuals

are members of parallel social systems, they

hold a combination of stronger and weaker ties

(without redundancy) across social systems. A

P2

P1a

P3a

P3b

P3cP1b

P1c

P4a

P4b

P5a

P6a

P5b

P6b

StrongProximal Ties

StrongDistal Ties

JobSatisfaction

SubjectiveCareer Success

ObjectiveCareer Success

Innovation inRole Set

Innovation inRole Cognition

Innovation inRole Behavior

SocialCredentials

EmbeddedRoles

Role Innovation WorkOutcomes

Figure 1. Embedded roles, role innovation, and employee outcomes.

Aime et al. 345



married couple exemplifies a strong tie. At the

same time, however, each partner typically has

strong, unshared relationships with other people

in other areas of life. Thus, distal ties are not

necessarily weak ties. Consistent with this,

McEvily and Zaheer (1999) demonstrate that

new ideas, information, and opportunities can

be sourced through contacts that are simulta-

neously strong and nonredundant.

We propose that the ease of access to

information and support available from strong

distal ties has special relevance to innovation

in role behaviors. For most employees, role

behaviors occur primarily within the immediate

workgroup based on formal structural cohesion

that specifies task interdependence and work-

flow interactions. Hence, changes in role

behaviors must be negotiated with those in the

immediate workgroup. Employees with strong

distal ties can selectively use their easily

acquired external information to persuade oth-

ers in the workgroup to accept their role beha-

vior innovations—even when they start with

different perspectives (Moscovici, 1980). In

addition, they can draw on the social credentials

(legitimacy, reputation, and power connections)

of their contacts outside the workgroup to gain

external support for role behavior innovation

(Kilduff & Krackhardt, 1994).

For example, an employee who has been

promoted across functions or divisions or

someone with long tenure and prior work

experience in other departments typically has

strong, trusting relationships with individuals in

other parts of the organization. Through these

strong distal ties, this individual can easily

access information and third-party support.

Thus, even as a newcomer to a workgroup with

relatively weak proximal ties, this employee

has the opportunity to negotiate changes in the

number, scope, and/or types of job tasks the

group performs—based on the ease of access

to information and support from strong distal

ties. In sum, we propose a positive relationship

between strong distal ties and opportunities for

innovation in role behaviors.

Proposition 1a: Strong distal ties increase an

employee’s opportunity to innovate in role

behaviors.

Innovation in role cognitions at work is

defined by the interactionist perspective as

changes in social meaning in which roles serve

as a proxy for explaining the relationship

between the self and the work social context

(Callero, 1994; Katz & Kahn, 1978). For

example, at one extreme employees view their

work as a set of discrete tasks. At the other end

of this continuum, they view their work as an

integrated whole with broader purpose. Inno-

vation in role cognitions is represented by

changes in how employees view their jobs—

changes in their thoughts about their jobs.

When employees have strong distal ties,

they have opportunities to obtain information

and third-party support that is not readily avail-

able within the core workgroup. Using similar

conceptual arguments to those advanced for

Proposition 1a, we posit that strong distal ties

provide employees with opportunities to inno-

vate in role cognitions. Consistent with this

reasoning, Tushman and Scanlan (1981) demon-

strate that ease of access enhances effectiveness

in scouting for information. For example, a prod-

uct manager who has a close relationship with an

analyst in market research (strong distal tie) most

likely would be comfortable asking for informa-

tion on preliminary market projections. In con-

trast, a product manager with a weak distal tie

would need to be cautious in requesting market

information and would be less likely to obtain

information regularly. Ease of distal access—

that is, access that spans multiple functions

and/or organizational levels (Clark & Fujimoto,

1991)—provides employees with new informa-

tion, schemas, and beliefs that should provide

them with opportunities to reframe their role

cognitions.

Strong distal ties allow employees to

broaden their perspectives, which in turn fac-

ilitate changes in how work is conceptualized,

including the overall sense of work contributions,




interdependence with others, and personal iden-

tity (Granovetter, 1973). Consistent with this,

Tushman and Katz (1980) demonstrate that distal

ties enhance information exchange and prevent

parochial or insular cognitions about work. For

example, if an engineer in logistics has strong

distal ties with employees in manufacturing and

sales, the engineer’s work cognitions most

likely include production and client perspec-

tives (Ibarra & Andrews, 1993). This broader

perspective, based on easier access to infor-

mation and external support, should enhance

role cognition innovation (Granovetter, 1982).

In sum, we posit a positive relationship between

strong distal ties and opportunities for role

cognition innovation.

Proposition 1b: Strong distal ties increase an

employee’s opportunity to innovate in role

cognitions.

Innovation in role sets at work is defined

as changes in the quantity and/or quality of

the set of interlocking network positions that

define the structure of an employee’s role set

(Baker & Faulkner, 1991; Katz & Kahn, 1978).

For example, some employees are well con-

nected to others, both directly and indirectly,

through links in their social network of rela-

tionships. In contrast, other employees have

few connections to others. Innovation in role

sets occurs when employees proactively change

the nature of their social network, enabling

access to resources available from others.

Consistent with our earlier emphasis on the

importance of distal ties, we posit here that

strong relationships outside the boundaries of

workgroup (strong distal ties) will enhance

innovation in role sets. When employees have

access to the social capital and resources of

others, both directly and indirectly (Lin, Ensel,

& Vaughn, 1981a), the resources provide them

with insider information about others (such

as their expertise in a specific area or their

general tendency to follow through and deliver

quality work). Strong distal ties also provide

employees with the opportunity to obtain

referrals to and from others (introductions and

help gaining attention). Both facets of strong

distal ties—access to information and access to

third-party support—allow employees to check

on others’ reputations and obtain outside opi-

nions about which employees can be trusted.

In other words, strong distal ties provide

employees with the opportunity to use the

social capital of their network to expand their

role sets without personally developing each

new relationship individually and without

unnecessary risk (Lin et al., 1981a).

The research literature provides support

for this assertion. Benefits of strong distal ties

include high trust and rapid responses (Kilduff

& Krackhardt, 1994) as well as indirect access

to unique information, unique new ties, and

unique resources (Granovetter, 1982). We

suggest that this knowledge and support should

be especially useful for innovation in role sets.

For example, loan analysts who have close

personal relationships with sales coordinators

(strong distal ties) can regularly obtain missing

information from sales agents and rapidly

finalize loan application materials instead

of simply rejecting incomplete forms. When

distal ties are strong, loan analysts have more

opportunities to access and benefit from rela-

tionships with relevant others. A product man-

ager who has a close personal relationship with

the vice president of sales should be able to

access higher quality information from manu-

facturing based on personal introductions and

preexisting trust of indirect ties because those

with strong distal ties are better able to obtain

candid opinions and information about other

people in the organization. This insider infor-

mation on reputations allows employees to

modify their work relationships and patterns of

interaction so that they use reputational infor-

mation to determine on whom they will rely,

whom they will trust, and whom they will avoid

because they are generally perceived as

untrustworthy. In contrast, those with weak

distal ties have less and slower access to insider

Aime et al. 347



information about others in their potential role

sets. Thus, they have less opportunity to inno-

vate role sets. In sum, we propose a positive

relationship between strong distal ties and

opportunities for role set innovation.

Proposition 1c: Strong distal ties increase an

employee’s opportunity to innovate in role sets.

Role innovation and proximal ties

Role innovations seldom occur in a vacuum

where there are no proximal ties. Instead, role

behavior innovation typically occurs within a

workgroup where employees are interdependent

and must coordinate their work efforts. Accord-

ingly, it is important to consider the nature of

proximal ties and the manner in which they

influence role innovation. In this section, we first

consider the direct effects of strong proximal ties

and then turn to the joint (interactive) effects of

strong distal ties combined with strong proximal

ties.

Proximity facilitates social interaction

(Festinger et al., 1950). Likewise, similar

tasks (Carley, 1991), formal structure, and

workflow design (Brass & Burkhardt, 1992),

together with the relevance of employees’

roles for their group (Humphrey, Morgeson, &

Mannor, 2009), enhance social interaction

within workgroups. Those in the same work-

group are typically interdependent and share

workflow and communication content, which

together create proximal ties. In some cases,

however, relationships within the workgroup

expand beyond formal ties, becoming more

personal and including advice and friendships

(Bridge & Baxter, 1992). This increases the

amount and breadth of shared information

(Brass et al., 2004) as well as the level of trust

in the relationship (Gibbons, 2004). Strong

ties enhance an employee’s social position in

the workgroup based on interpersonal attrac-

tion, trust, support, and friendship. Within

such trusting relationships, employees are

more likely to take the risk of speaking up and

suggesting changes in work practices (LePine

& Van Dyne, 2001; Van Dyne, Kamdar, &

Joireman, 2008). Overall, those with strong

proximal ties are better able to influence

others to support their ideas for change

because generalized trust makes change seem

less threatening (Gibbons, 2004). Therefore,

those with strong proximal ties benefit from

the resource of having influence within the

workgroup.

The leadership literature provides addi-

tional support for this causal mechanism and

the notion that strong proximal ties enhance

influence within the group. For example,

research demonstrates that those who are liked

and respected in their groups are more likely

to emerge as leaders and will have greater

influence over others (Hollander & Julian,

1969). In addition, Friedkin’s (1993) long-

itudinal study of the structural bases of inter-

personal influence in groups demonstrates that

stronger ties increase influence within the

group, even after controlling for the elemen-

tary basis of interpersonal power (reward,

coercive, legitimate, expert, and referent

power; French & Raven, 1959). Employees

with strong proximal ties (friendships) are

especially visible and salient to coworkers,

which further enhances their interpersonal

influence within the group.

In conclusion, employees with strong prox-

imal ties should have more influence in the

workgroup and more opportunity to innovate in

role behaviors. For example, a technical

employee with high tenure in the workgroup

who is liked and respected by others in the

group (strong proximal ties) should be better

able to persuade others to accept his/her

changes in role behaviors. In contrast, new hires

with no previous work relationships in the

group (weak proximal ties) are constrained by

the challenges of learning their new roles and

conforming to existing role behaviors (Morri-

son, 1993). In sum, we propose a positive

relationship between strong proximal ties and

opportunities for role behavior innovation.




Proposition 2: Strong proximal ties increase

an employee’s opportunity to innovate in role

behaviors.

We note that the previous description of

causal mechanisms associated with strong

proximal ties differs from some past approaches

(Coleman, 1988). This is intentional and rep-

resents one of the potential contributions of our

approach. Traditional research assumes that

dense networks of strong ties constrain inde-

pendent action by providing sanctions for

behavior that deviates from group norms. Our

approach differs in two ways. First, Coleman

(1988) examines the negative relationship

between cohesion in parent–teacher networks

(strength of proximal ties) and dropping out of

school. Thus, this research focused on effects

across different actors where a highly cohesive

network between parents and teachers influences

student behavior (staying in school). In contrast,

we emphasize the network of the actor and

consequences to the actor (role innovation, job

satisfaction, and career success). We argue that

strong proximal ties within the workgroup pro-

vide employees with opportunities to innovate in

role behaviors based on liking and trust. Second,

we emphasize the broader social system and the

possibility that actors also have distal ties. In

contrast, Coleman adopts Simmel’s (1955) group

affiliation perspective and focuses on the devel-

opment of trust and norms in a single affiliation

group without considering additional group

affiliations (other proximal and distal ties). We

suggest that differentiating proximal and distal

ties and the influence mechanisms associated

with each allows more refined theorizing and

thus is a potential contribution of our approach.

The joint effects of distal and proximal ties

Considering the combined effects of distal and

proximal ties suggests that the effects of

employee embeddedness are more complex

than simple direct effects alone. Instead, we

argue that the nature of proximal ties will

change the relationships between distal ties and

role innovation. In addition, drawing on prior

theory and research, we develop arguments

predicting that the joint effects of distal ties

and proximal ties will differ across the three

types of role innovations: role behavior inno-

vation, role cognition innovation, and role set

innovation.

In P1a we predicted positive effects of strong

proximal ties, and in P2 we predicted positive

effects of strong distal ties on innovation in role

behaviors. Now considering the joint effects of

both types of ties simultaneously, we propose

an enhancement effect where both predictors

have positive relationships with innovation in

role behaviors, but that strong proximal ties

strengthen the positive relationship between

distal ties and role behavior innovation (see

illustration P3a in Table 1). Strong proximal

ties provide employees with resources that

allow them to capitalize on information and

outside support, enhancing their opportunities

for role behavior innovation while simultane-

ously preserving cooperation and coordination

of work. This logic parallels the rationale

developed and applied by Reagans, Zuckerman,

and McEvily (2004) at the team level; they

reason that internal density (the nature of

proximal ties) and external range (the nature of

distal ties) combine to enhance team perfor-

mance such that proximal ties allow teams to

realize the value embedded in their distal ties

(Burt, 2003).

Strong proximal ties combined with strong

distal ties give employees three important

resources that should facilitate role behavior

innovation: (a) influence in the proximal

workgroup where role behavior innovation

must be negotiated, (b) access to distal infor-

mation that provides ideas for role behavior

innovation, and (c) external support that can

help convince others to accept role behavior

innovation. Although it might seem reasonable

to expect simple additive effects, we argue for

interaction effects because strong proximal

ties should strengthen employees’ opportunities

Aime et al. 349



to use the resources embedded in their distal

ties. Restated, influence within the workgroup

should make employees more effective in per-

suading others to accept role behavior innova-

tion that they develop based on access to

information and third-party support. For exam-

ple, a loan analyst with strong proximal ties in

the workgroup who also has strong distal ties

in the sales department (perhaps due to previous

tenure or personal relationships) has more than

proportional influence on changes in role beha-

viors (such as how to handle application rejec-

tions due to incomplete information) compared

to a loan analyst recently transferred into the

group from the sales department (strong distal

ties but weak proximal ties). In sum, we pro-

pose an interaction effect where strong proxi-

mal ties enhance the relationship between

distal ties and opportunities for role behavior

innovation.

Proposition 3a: Strong proximal ties strengthen

the positive relationship between distal ties and

opportunity to innovate in role behaviors.

We also propose an interaction effect for

innovation in role cognitions where the nature

of proximal ties changes the relationship

between distal ties and role cognition inno-

vation. In contrast to Proposition 3a, however,

we do not expect positive relationships for

both predictors when they are considered

simultaneously. Instead, when proximal and

distal ties are considered jointly, we expect a

positive relationship between distal ties and

role cognition innovation when proximal ties

are strong, but no relationship between them

when proximal ties are weak. Table 1 provides

an illustration of this predicted interaction

(see P3b).

Our reasoning for this difference is based on

the unique relevance of strong proximal ties to

innovation in role cognitions. Strong distal ties

provide employees with the raw material and

resources (access to information and third-party

support) to develop innovation in their role

cognitions. When combined with strong proxi-

mal ties in the workgroup, employees have the

influence to convince others to go along with

their role cognition changes. This results in a

positive relationship between distal ties and

innovation in role cognitions when proximal

ties are strong. Thus, strong proximal ties allow

them to capitalize on the raw material provided

by their distal ties for changes in role concep-

tualizations. In contrast, however, when

employees have strong distal ties and weak

proximal ties, they have the raw materials to

come up with ideas for role cognition innova-

tion. However, their lack of strong proximal ties

will constrain implementation of these new

ideas because workgroup task interdependence

and workflow interactions constrain the ways

that employees think about their roles and pre-

vent them from capitalizing on the ideas they

obtain from distal ties.

Consistent with these arguments, research

demonstrates that strong proximal ties facilitate

evolving expectations such as when new values

or novel beliefs are transferred from friend to

friend (Gibbons, 2004; Podolny & Baron, 1997).

Strong proximal ties combined with strong distal

ties allow employees to avoid problems and

constraints that can occur when multiple con-

stituencies have different and inconsistent role

expectations (van Sell, Brief, & Schuler, 1981).

This in turn allows them to implement changes

in role cognitions. In line with our arguments,

Druskat and Wheeler (2003) demonstrate the

multiplicative benefits of strong local and distal

relationships such that managers who use per-

sonal contacts to obtain information from other

areas are better able to persuade their work-

groups to accept changes. Accordingly, we posit

an interaction effect with a positive relationship

between distal ties and role cognition innovation

when proximal ties are strong, but no relation-

ship between distal ties and role cognition

innovation when proximal ties are weak.

Proposition 3b: Strong proximal ties strengthen

the positive relationship between distal ties and




opportunity to innovate in role cognitions, but

there will be no relationship between distal ties

and opportunity to innovate in role cognitions

when distal ties are weak.

As we have argued above, innovations in

role behaviors and role cognitions are primarily

implemented within the immediate workgroup.

In contrast, innovation in role sets involves

more distal network relationships and is pri-

marily implemented outside the confines of the

workgroup because innovation in role set is

defined as change in the quantity and/or quality

of the set of interlocking network positions that

define the structure of an employee’s role set

(Baker & Faulkner, 1991; Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Thus, by definition, innovation in role sets

focuses on more distal relationships.

This leads to a contrasting expectation for the

joint effects of distal ties and proximal ties as

predictors of role set innovations. As we pro-

posed in Proposition 1c, there are strong theo-

retical reasons to expect a positive relationship

between strong distal ties and role set innova-

tion. In contrast, however, strong proximal ties

focus attention inward on the workgroup itself

and serve to constrain expansion of role sets.

Proximal ties facilitate innovation at the prox-

imal level—within the workgroup. At the same

time, proximal ties tend to obstruct innovation

that might occur in more distal relationships.

This results in a positive relationship between

distal ties and role set innovation only when

proximal ties are weak. Thus, strong proximal

ties prevent employees from capitalizing on the

raw material provided by their distal ties for role

set innovation (see Figure P3c in Table 1 for an

illustration of predicted interaction).

Consistent with these conceptual arguments,

research demonstrates that strong proximal

relationships such as those based on liking

and friendship reinforce existing patterns of

interactions and constrain changes in role set

(Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969). Hence, even though

distal ties provide employees with opportunities

for role set innovation (Granovetter, 1982),

changes in distal relationships can threaten those

in the immediate workgroup, raising questions

about allegiance and loyalty. As a result, when

both distal and proximal ties are strong, conflicts

in role expectations (van Sell et al., 1981) based

on strong proximal ties constrain opportunities

to act upon ideas for innovation in role sets

obtained from strong distal ties. In sum, we

propose an interaction effect where strong

proximal ties constrain (weaken) the relation-

ship between distal ties and opportunities for

role set innovation. Thus, the relationship

between distal ties and role set innovation will

be positive only when proximal ties are weak.

Proposition 3c: Strong proximal ties weaken

the positive relationship between distal ties

and opportunity to innovate in role sets.

Role innovation, satisfaction, andcareer success

Thus far we have argued that proximal and

distal ties can facilitate or constrain employee

role innovations. Although existing research

generally emphasizes the benefits of proactive

employee behaviors for job satisfaction and

career success (Crant, 2000), this literature has

not yet considered the socially embedded

nature of work and the structural characteristics

of employee proximal and distal networks.

Going beyond prior theory, we focus on role

innovation as a potentially important mechan-

ism that influences job satisfaction and career

success.

Role innovation and job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is defined as an employee’s

affective experience at work (Weiss &

Cropanzano, 1996). Three streams of research

point to specific reasons to expect that innovation

in role behaviors will increase job satisfaction.

First, research supports a positive relationship

between feelings of control or influence and job

satisfaction (Wayne, Liden, Kraimer, & Graf,

Aime et al. 351



1999). For example, the Greenberger, Strasser,

and Lee’s (1988) research on nursing service

employees demonstrates a positive relationship

between employee perceptions of personal

control and contingent rewards. Spreitzer,

Kizilos, and Nason (1997) demonstrate that

four aspects of empowerment (meaning,

competence, self-determination, and impact)

predict job satisfaction.

Second, role behavior innovation allows

employees to align job tasks with personal

knowledge, skills, and ability. When jobs

emphasize employee strengths, feelings of

self-efficacy and job satisfaction are enhanced.

Stevens and Gist (1997) demonstrate that

mastery-oriented training enhances positive

affect. Suppose, for example, that a loan analyst

modifies role behaviors to emphasize personal

strengths (expanding the job to handle all con-

struction industry client applications based on

expertise in the industry). In this scenario, the

analyst should feel more efficacious about

work and this should enhance the overall affec-

tive experience.

Third, role behavior innovation also enables

employees to improve person–job (P–J) fit by

modifying tasks to suit individual needs and

preferences (O’Reilly, 1977). Prior research

consistently demonstrates positive relationships

between fit and satisfaction. For example,

Kristof-Brown, Jansen, and Colbert (2002)

use critical incidents to show that person–job

fit has positive effects on work satisfaction.

O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991)

demonstrate that matching accountant skills

to job descriptions (P–J fit) results in higher

job satisfaction. Saks and Ashforth (1997)

show that P–J fit of new hires has positive

effects on job satisfaction. For example, a loan

analyst who changes role behaviors by taking

on additional responsibilities (proactively

obtaining missing information so that more

loans are approved) can satisfy a personal

need for achievement. Thus, we propose a

positive relationship between role behavior

innovation and employee job satisfaction.

Proposition 4a: Innovation in role behaviors

increases job satisfaction.

We also propose that innovation in role

cognitions will enhance job satisfaction. Our

argument is based on research on experienced

meaningfulness of work, role clarity, and role

identity. When employees’ distal and proximal

ties facilitate innovation in their role cogni-

tions, they are more likely to understand their

roles in the context of the broader organization,

clarify the expectations of others about their

roles (Morrison, 1993), and use their new cog-

nitions to manage self-perceptions and identity

(Stryker, 1980; Stryker & Burke, 2000).

Consistent with this, research demonstrates

that understanding how the work role fits into

the larger system and contributes to objectives

increases job satisfaction (see Fried & Ferris,

1987; Loher, Noe, & Moeller, 1985, for meta-

analytic support). Increased clarity about the

expectations of others reduces role ambiguity

and enhances job satisfaction (Jackson & Schu-

ler, 1985). Likewise, research on mentoring

demonstrates that exposure to the views and

expertise of others reduces role ambiguity and

enhances job satisfaction (Lankau & Scandura,

2002). Finally, role cognition innovation can

reinforce the uniqueness of an employee’s role

and identity, providing a unique view of the

self within the workgroup (Swann, Polzer,

Seyle, & Ko, 2004). To summarize, the litera-

tures on meaningfulness of work, role clarity,

and role identity provide support for expecting

role cognition innovation to enhance job satis-

faction. Thus, we propose a positive relation-

ship between role cognition innovation and

job satisfaction.

Proposition 4b: Innovation in role cognitions

increases job satisfaction.

Role innovation and career success

Career success is defined as the real or perceived

achievements that individuals accumulate based




on their work experiences (Hall, 1976). Con-

sistent with previous research, we view career

success as a multidimensional concept (Kirch-

meyer, 1998) that includes subjective (intrinsic)

elements and objective (extrinsic) elements

(Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001; Turban &

Dougherty, 1994). We separate our treatment of

these two aspects of career success because prior

research demonstrates that although these two

aspects of career success are moderately related,

they are different constructs (Bray & Howard,

1980). Subjective career success is an individu-

al’s intrinsic feeling of personal career success

and accomplishment, such as having a sense of

value, status, and potential (Wayne et al., 1999).

Two rationales suggest that role cognition inno-

vation should enhance subjective assessments of

career success: broader understanding of personal

contributions and career-planning opportunities.

First, when broader organizational informa-

tion is used for role cognition innovation,

employees have more opportunities to make

sense of how their personal work contributions

support the goals and values of the larger

organization (Weick, 1995). This in turn should

help them construct the meaning of work so that

it is more relevant to their own personal values,

allowing them think of work as a positive

source of personal identity (Stryker & Burke,

2000). Knowledge of the broader organization

and how this fits with individual contributions

should be self-reinforcing because it shows

personal worthiness and contributions to the

social system (Lin, Cook, & Burt, 2001). Sec-

ond, viewing the job in the context of the

broader organization helps enhance employee

perceptions of career-planning possibilities and

outcomes. As a result, feelings of personal con-

trol and perceptions of career potential out-

comes should be enhanced (Greenberger

et al., 1988; Spreitzer et al., 1997). Consistent

with these arguments, research demonstrates

that career planning is positively related to

career satisfaction (Wayne et al., 1999). In sum,

the information available through distal ties

allows employees to reconceptualize their roles

in more meaningful ways and to think more

broadly about career opportunities, both of

which should lead to more positive evaluations

of their careers. Thus, we propose a positive

relationship between role cognition innovation

and subjective career success.

Proposition 5a: Innovation in role cognitions

increases subjective career success.

Innovation in role sets should also have

positive implications for subjective career suc-

cess. When employees proactively change the

quality and quantity of their work relationships

based on distal ties (changing role set), they

have better and more selective access to support

and social capital from others (Lin et al.,

1981b). As a result, role set innovation can be a

source of psychosocial benefits (acceptance,

friendship, counseling, role modeling) that

enhances subjective perceptions of career

success. Improved relationships at work can

also enhance the employee’s sense of compe-

tence, identity, and effectiveness in a profes-

sional role (Ibarra, 1995). Examples include

mentoring relationships (Higgins & Kram,

2001) and friendship networks (Krackhardt,

1990). For example, Lankau and Scandura

(2002) demonstrate that individuals with men-

tors have a better understanding of relationships

and higher satisfaction. Turban and Dougherty

(1994) demonstrate a positive relationship

between mentoring and perceived career suc-

cess. Therefore, we posit a positive relationship

between role set innovation and subjective

career success.

Proposition 5b: Innovation in role sets increases

subjective career success.

Objective career success is defined as

assessment based on decisions made by others

(salary increases, promotions, perquisites, etc.)

(Wayne et al., 1999) and thus is more formal

and tangible than subjective career success

because it explicitly signals the employee’s

Aime et al. 353



recognized value to the organization. Objective

indicators of success include title, reserved

parking, or a corner office.

Innovation in role cognitions based on

strong distal and proximal ties increases role

clarity, which can be motivating and lead to

higher work effort. It can also allow the

employee to ‘‘work smart’’ and invest effort in

projects that are valued by the organization.

Working hard and working on the ‘‘right’’

things enhances performance (Spreitzer et al.,

1997). Accordingly, role cognition innovation

based on strong ties, both distal and proximal,

should enhance performance and result in better

performance evaluations and better objective

career success. In sum, we propose a positive

relationship between role cognition innovation

and objective career success.

Proposition 6a: Innovation in role cognitions

increases objective career success.

The literature, however, does not support a

main effect of innovation in role sets on

objective career success. Instead, we propose an

interaction effect where role set innovation

enhances objective career success only when

the distal ties are high in social credentials,

which are defined as organizational ‘‘certifica-

tion’’ of value (Lin et al., 2001). Those with

high social credentials are recognized by others

for their expertise, responsibility, and power.

Thus, they influence decision making and the

careers of others.

When an employee has strong distal ties

with an individual who has high social cre-

dentials, the resources thus provided (access

to information and third-party support) will

have value that is recognized by others. In

other words, acting on these resources is

more likely to have positive implications for

the employee’s reputation and performance

as assessed by others. This employee’s role

set innovation will have positive conse-

quences for objective career success because

the social credentials of the distal ties are

recognized by others as positive. For exam-

ple, if a loan analyst develops a strong tie

to a successful sales vice president (high

social credentials), the role set innovation

should have positive career consequences

(access to breaking news and high-quality

information about career development and

transfer opportunities, promotion potential,

and access to external support).

There are at least three reasons why role set

innovation based on ties with people with high

social credentials can enhance objective career

success. First, strong distal ties to powerful

others increase access to the dominant coalition

and opportunities for organizational advance-

ment (Brass, 1984). This includes insider

knowledge of and access to promotion oppor-

tunities (preferential treatment). Second, strong

distal ties with those with social credentials

should facilitate role set innovation in a manner

that will be viewed positively by others who

have power. Thus employees benefit from the

position power of their contacts (Campbell,

Marsden, & Hurlbert, 1986). Third, strong

distal ties to powerful others should have pos-

itive reputation effects for the employee. For

example, the person with high credentials can

provide external support, such as recommend-

ing a promotion for the employee. Given the

recommender’s social credentials, supervisors

should be more likely to listen and act on the

recommendation. Similarly, strong ties with

people possessing social credentials can

enhance the employee’s reputation by pub-

licizing employee accomplishments and

recommending special rewards (Aime, Meyer,

& Humphrey, 2010). These behaviors represent

political support that actively shapes reputa-

tion and career opportunities. Consistent with

balance theory (Heider, 1958) and the basking-

in-reflected-glory perspective (Cialdini et al.,

1976), support provided by those with high

social credentials should have positive impli-

cations for objective career success because

others will ascribe positive value to proteges

(Kilduff & Krackhardt, 1994).




In contrast, role set innovation based on ties

with an individual with low social credentials

should have negative implications for objective

career success because accessing information

or trying to gain support from those who are not

well regarded or not influential (weak social

credentials) may damage the employee’s repu-

tation. For example, if a loan analyst develops a

strong tie with an unsuccessful sales vice

president (low social credentials), the role set

innovation should have negative career conse-

quences (access to dated or poor-quality infor-

mation) and negative spillover effects.

Likewise, if an employee engages in role set

innovation and starts relying on someone with

low social credentials (a clerical or technical

employee in a peripheral area of the organiza-

tion or someone with a bad reputation), the con-

nection will not be viewed positively by

decision makers or by the dominant coalition.

In sum, we propose an interaction effect where

social credentials change the nature of the rela-

tionship between role set innovation and objec-

tive career success, with positive implications

for high social credentials and negative impli-

cations for low social credentials.

Proposition 6b: Social credentials will interact

with innovation in role sets to influence objec-

tive career success such that the relationship is

positive when social credentials are high and

negative when social credentials are low.

Discussion

Our theory aims to make several contributions

to the study of role innovation. First, the

existing literature on role innovation empha-

sizes individual-level predictors such as

employee characteristics and job discretion

(Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Nicholson &

West, 1988). Prior research also appears to

assume that individual role innovation can be

aggregated from the micro level to the macro

level to produce organizational-level innova-

tion. Going beyond this past research, we stress

the importance of structural factors that can

influence role innovations. To our knowledge,

no prior work considers embeddedness—an

employee’s ties with others in the context of the

larger social structure—as an explanatory

mechanism that predicts role innovation and

has subsequent implications for job satisfac-

tion and career success. Thus, our theoretical

model should have important implications for

the role innovation literature because we spe-

cify causal influence mechanisms based on

characteristics of employee embeddedness

(personal persuasion, access to information,

and external support) that predict different

types of role innovation.

Second, our model should have theoretical

implications for the job satisfaction (Weiss &

Cropanzano, 1996) and careers (Wayne et al.,

1999) literatures because we specify contrast-

ing causal links between three different types of

role innovation—role behavior innovation, role

cognition innovation, and role set innovation—

and the outcomes of employee satisfaction and

career success. Finally, our model may have

implications for the social networks literature

as applied to management and organizations

(e.g., Burt, 1997; Higgins & Kram, 2001) by

explicating arguments for the interactive effects

of proximal ties and distal ties on individual

behaviors. Thus, differentiating proximal and

distal ties as independent dimensions that also

have potential interactive effects could enrich

social network research. While we have spe-

cifically focused on individual role innovation

in this paper and implications for an individu-

al’s job satisfaction and career success, we

believe future research can expand this work by

exploring the implications of proximal and

distal ties and their strength for workgroup

creativity, innovation and performance. Addi-

tionally, it may trigger future research that

explores how employee network structures may

affect the relationship between employee

mobility and organizational performance

(Aime, Johnson, Ridge, & Hill, 2010; Wezel,

Cattani, & Pennings, 2006). Our theoretical

Aime et al. 355



model should have applied relevance to

organizations that must cope with dynamic

competition and the increased importance of

employee initiative. By highlighting employee

embeddedness and differential implications for

proximal versus distal ties, the model and pro-

positions should offer insights that managers

can use to predict which employees are more or

less likely to engage in role innovation. While

role innovation may not always be wanted and

will not necessarily add value to the organiza-

tion, managers can apply the theoretical argu-

ments behind the propositions to anticipate

individual role innovation. The model should

also allow managers to differentiate three dif-

ferent types of role innovation—role behavior,

role cognition, and role set innovation—and

how these role innovations are influenced by

proximal and distal ties.

Another managerial implication of our the-

ory building is the relevance of the causal

influence mechanisms for employee develop-

ment: strong proximal ties provide employees

with resources that facilitate influence in the

immediate workgroup; strong distal ties pro-

vide employees with resources that facilitate

access to information and third-party support.

For example, if managers want to enhance role

innovation in general, they should encourage

employees to expand and strengthen their prox-

imal and distal ties so that they have influence

in the workgroup and also have outsider infor-

mation and support. If, however, managers are

especially interested in innovation in role sets,

they need to be cautious in the messages they

send to employees; strong proximal ties will

cause those in the immediate workgroup to cre-

ate barriers that weaken the positive effects of

strong distal ties on role set innovation. Accord-

ingly, a richer and more nuanced view of

embeddedness emerges when the interactive

effects of strong distal and proximal ties are

considered simultaneously.

Managers can also use the model to develop

a more fine-grained view of how employee

embeddedness and role innovation influence

job satisfaction and career success. This rein-

forces one of the foundational arguments we

drew on in the beginning of the paper—that

roles are claimed by employees and enacted

into positions (Baker & Faulkner, 1991) such

that enacted roles become resources that allow

employees to enhance their job satisfaction

and career success (Baker & Faulkner, 1991;

Callero, 1994; Fine, 1996). For example,

encouraging innovation in role behaviors and

role cognitions should lead to enhanced job

satisfaction, whereas encouraging innovation

in role cognitions and role sets should lead to

subjective career success. In addition, it might

be especially important for managers to encour-

age high-potential employees to focus on role

cognition innovation because there are strong

theoretical arguments to expect that this will

have direct and positive effects on objective

career success indicators such as promotions

and merit increases. Interestingly, although the

popular press emphasizes the importance of

building a large network, our reading of the

research literature indicates that a simple focus

on role set innovation is not likely to lead to

objective career success. Instead, both manag-

ers and employees should be aware that the

social credentials of those in the role set will

determine whether innovations have positive

or negative implications for objective career

success.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from

any funding agency in the public, commercial,

or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Aime, F., Johnson, S., Ridge, J. W., & Hill, A. D.

(2010). The routine may be stable but the advan-

tage is not: Competitive implications of key

employee mobility. Strategic Management Jour-

nal, 31, 75–87.

Aime, F., Meyer, C. J., & Humphrey, S. E. (2010).

Legitimacy of group rewards: Analyzing




legitimacy as a condition for the effectiveness of

group incentive designs. Journal of Business

Research, 63, 60–66.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging

the boundary: External activity and performance

in organizational teams. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 37, 634–665.

Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1995). Socialization

tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer

adjustment. Academy of Management Journal,

39, 149–178.

Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (1991). Role as

resource in the Hollywood film industry. Ameri-

can Journal of Sociology, 97, 279–309.

Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A struc-

tural analysis of individual influence in an organi-

zation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29,

518–539.

Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1992). Centrality

and power in organizations. In N. Nohria & R.

Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations:

Structure, form, and action (pp. 191–215). Bos-

ton, MA: Harvard Press.

Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai,

W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organi-

zations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of

Management Journal, 47, 795–818.

Bray, D. W., & Howard, A. (1980). Career success

and life satisfactions of middle-aged managers.

In L. A. Bond & J. C. Rosen (Eds.), Competence

and coping during adulthood (pp. 258–287).

Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Bridge, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1992). Structural holes:

The social structure of competition. Western

Journal of Communications, 56, 200–225.

Bridges, E. (1995). Jobshift: How to prosper in a

workplace without jobs. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social

capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42,

339–365.

Burt, R. S. (2003). Structural holes versus network

closure as social capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook, &

R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and

research (pp. 31–56). New York, NY: Aldine

de Gruyter.

Callero, P. L. (1994). From role-playing to role-using:

Understanding role as resource. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 57, 228–243.

Campbell, K. E., Marsden, P. V., & Hurlbert, J. S.

(1986). Social resources and socioeconomic sta-

tus. Social Networks, 8, 97–117.

Cappelli, P., Bassi, L., Katz, H., Knoke, D., Osterman,

P., & Useem, M. (1997). Change at work. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Carley, K. (1991). A theory of group stability. Amer-

ican Sociology Review, 56, 331–354.

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M.

R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking

in reflected glory: Three football field studies.

Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 34,

366–375.

Clark, K., & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product develop-

ment performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Univer-

sity Press.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation

of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,

94, 95–120.

Collier, P. J., & Callero, P. J. (2005). Role theory and

social cognition: Learning to think like a recycler.

Self and Identity, 4, 45–48.

Cote, S., & Hideg, I. (2011). The ability to influence

others via emotion displays: A new dimension of

emotional intelligence. Organizational Psychol-

ogy Review, 1, 53–71.

Cramer, D. (1986). An item factor analysis of the

original relationship inventory. Journal of Sociol-

ogy & Personal Relationships, 3, 121–127.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organiza-

tions. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462.

Dacin, M. T., Ventresca, M. J., & Beal, B. D.

(1999). The embeddedness of organizations:

Dialogue & directions. Journal of Management,

25, 317–356.

Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing

from the boundary: The effective leadership of

self-managing work teams. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 46, 435–457.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950).

Social pressures in informal groups: A study

of human factors in housing. New York, NY:

Harper.

Aime et al. 357



Fine, G. A. (1996). Justifying work: Occupational

rhetorics as resources in restaurant kitchens.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 90–115.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of

social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in

social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI:

University of Michigan Press.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the

job characteristics model: A review and meta-

analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.

Friedkin, N. E. (1993). Structural bases of interperso-

nal influence in groups: A longitudinal study.

American Sociology Review, 58, 861–872.

Gibbons, D. E. (2004). Friendship and advice

networks in the context of changing professional

values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49,

238–262.

Graen, G. B. (1976). Role making processes within

complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psy-

chology (pp. 1201–1245). Chicago, IL: Rand

McNally.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties.

American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties:

A network theory revisited. In P. V. Marsden &

N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network anal-

ysis (pp. 105–130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Grant, A. M., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Role expan-

sion as a persuasion process: The interpersonal

influence dynamics of role redefinition. Organi-

zational Psychology Review, 1, 9–31.

Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., & Lee, S. (1988).

Personal control as a mediator between percep-

tions of supervisory behaviors and employee

reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 31,

405–417.

Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007).

A new model of role performance: Positive

behavior in uncertain and interdependent con-

texts. Academy of Management Journal, 50,

327–347.

Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Santa

Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal

relations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconcep-

tualizing mentoring at work: A developmental

network perspective. Academy of Management

Review, 26, 264–288.

Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contempo-

rary trends in the analysis of leadership processes.

Psychology Bulletin, 71, 387–397.

Humphrey, S. E., Morgeson, F. P., & Mannor, M. J.

(2009). Developing a theory of the strategic core

of teams: A role composition model of team per-

formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,

48–61.

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P.

(2007). Integrating motivational, social, and con-

textual work design features: A meta-analytic

summary and theoretical extension of the work

design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology,

92, 1332–1356.

Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of

social circles in managerial networks. Academy of


Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993). Power, social

influence, and sense-making: Effects of network

centrality and proximity on employee perceptions.


Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams in organizations: Some

implications. American Psychology, 54, 129–139.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-

analysis and conceptual critique of research on

role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings.

Organizational Behavior in Human Decision

Processes, 36, 16–79.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychol-

ogy of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Kiesler, C. A., & Kiesler, S. B. (1969). Conformity.

Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the

individual back in: A structural analysis of the

internal market for reputation in organizations.

Academy of Management Journal, 37, 87–109.

Kirchmeyer, C. (1998). Determinants of managerial

career success: Evidence and explanation of

male/female differences. Journal of Manage-

ment, 24, 673–692.

Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political land-

scape: Structure, cognition, and power in




organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,

35, 342–369.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Jansen, K. J., & Colbert, A.

E. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the

simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups,

and organizations. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 87, 985–993.

Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investi-

gation of personal learning in mentoring relation-

ships: Content, antecedents, and consequences.

Academy of Management Journal, 45, 779–790.

Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablinski, C. J., Burton,

J. P., & Holtom, B. C. (2004). The effects of job

embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job

performance, volitional absences, and voluntary

turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47,

711–722.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting

voice behavior in work groups. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83, 853–868.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and

cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of con-

textual performance: Evidence of differential

relationships with Big Five personality character-

istics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86, 325–336.

Lin, N., Cook, K. S., & Burt, R. S. (2001). Social

capital: Theory and research. Bel Aire, CA:

Aldine Transaction.

Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., & Vaughn, J. C. (1981a).

Social resources and occupational status attain-

ment. Social Forces, 59, 1163–1181.

Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., & Vaughn, J. C. (1981b).

Social resources & strength of ties. American

Sociology Review, 46, 393–405.

Linton, R. (1936). The study of man. New York, NY:

Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., & Moeller, N. L. (1985). A

meta-analysis of the relation of job characteristics

to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 70, 280–289.

Lorrain, F., & White, H. C. (1971). Structural

equivalence of individuals in social networks.

Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 49–80.

Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment

and commitment scales for predicting continuity

of personal relationships. Journal of Sociology

& Personal Relations, 2, 3–23.

Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measur-

ing tie strength. Sociology Forces, 63, 482–501.

McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: A

source of firm heterogeneity in competitive cap-

abilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20,

1133–1156.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The

work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing

and validating a comprehensive measure for

assessing job design and the nature of work. Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339.

Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information

seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and

outcomes. Academy of Management Journal,

36, 557–589.

Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion

behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp.

209–239). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Munton, A. G., & West, M. A. (1995). Innovations

and personal change: Patterns of adjustment to

relocation. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

16, 363–375.

Nicholson, N., & West, M. A. (1988). Managerial

job change: Men and women in transition. Cam-

bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Oh, H., Chung, M., & Labianca, G. (2004). Group

social capital and group effectiveness: The role

of informal socializing ties. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 47, 860–875.

Oh, H., Labianca, G., & Chung, M.-H. (2006). A

multilevel model of group social capital. Acad-

emy of Management Review, 31, 569–582.

O’Reilly, C. (1977). Personality–job fit: Implications

for individual attitudes and performance. Organi-

zational Behavior & Human Performance, 18,

36–46.

O’Reilly, C., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991).

People and organizational culture: A profile com-

parison approach to assessing person–organiza-

tion fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34,

487–516.

Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breath self-

efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other

Aime et al. 359



organizational interventions. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 835–857.

Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources

and relationships: Social networks and mobility

in the workplace. American Sociology Review,

62, 673–693.

Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B. (2004).

How to make a team: Social networks vs. demo-

graphy as criteria for designing effective teams.


Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal

investigation of the relationships between job

information sources, applicant perceptions of fit,

and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50,

395–426.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social infor-

mation processing approach to job attitudes and

task design. Administrative Science Quarterly,

23, 224–253.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of

innovative behavior: A path model of individual

innovation in the workplace. Academy of


Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001).

A social capital theory of career success. Acad-

emy of Management Journal, 44, 219–237.

Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict and the web of group

affiliations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W.

(1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship

between psychological empowerment and effec-

tiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Man-

agement, 23, 679–704.

Staw, B. M., & Boettger, R. D. (1990). Task revision:

A neglected form of work performance. Academy

of Management Journal, 33, 534–559.

Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997). Effects of

self-efficacy and goal orientation training on nego-

tiation skill maintenance: What are the mechan-

isms? Personnel Psychology, 50, 955–978.

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social

structural version. Palo Alto, CA: Benjamin/

Cummings.

Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present,

and future of an identity theory. Social Psychol-

ogy Quarterly, 63, 284–297.

Swann, W. B., Polzer, J. T., Seyle, D. C., & Ko, S.

J. (2004). Finding value in diversity: Verifica-

tion of personal and social self-views in diverse

groups. Academy of Management Review, 29,

9–28.

Turban, D., & Dougherty, T. (1994). Role of protege

personality in receipt of mentoring and career

success. Academy of Management Journal, 37,

688–702.

Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External com-

munication and project performance: An investi-

gation into the role of gatekeepers. Management

Science, 265, 1071–1085.

Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary

spanning individuals: Their role in information

transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Man-

agement Journal, 24, 289–305.

Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D.A., & Joireman, J. (2008).

In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact of

low LMX on helping and enhance the positive

impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 93, 1195–1207.

Van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. (1981).

Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration of

the literature and directions for future research.

Human Relations, 34, 43–71.

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group

effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,

40, 145–180.

Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I.

K. (1999). The role of human capital, motiva-

tion, and supervisor sponsorship to career suc-

cess. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20,

577–595.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective

events theory: A theoretical discussion of

the structure, causes and consequences of affec-

tive experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L.

Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Wezel, F. C., Cattani, G., & Pennings, J. M. (2006).

Competitive implications of interfirm mobility.

Organization Science, 17, 691–709.




Author biographies

Federico Aime is Assistant Professor of Man-

agement at Oklahoma State University. He

received his PhD from Michigan State

University. His research focuses primarily on

the study of social and psychological processes

in corporate units and their effects on perfor-

mance, organization and decision making. He

currently serves in the editorial board of the

Journal of Management and his research has

been published in a variety of research outlets.

Linn Van Dyne is Professor of Management at

Michigan State University. She received her

PhD from the University of Minnesota. Her two

major research programs focus on helping and

voice as examples of citizenship and proactive

employee behavior, and cultural intelligence

as a predictor of employee adjustment and per-

formance in intercultural settings. She is

Associate Editor of Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes and is part of

the editorial boards of Academy of Management

Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Jour-

nal of Organizational Behavior, Academy of

Management Perspectives, Human Relations,

and Management and Organization Review.

She is a fellow in the Society of Organizational

Behavior and has published in Academy of

Management Journal, Academy of Manage-

ment Review, Journal of Applied Psychology,

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, Research in Organizational Beha-

vior, and other outlets.

Oleg V. Petrenko is a doctoral student of Man-

agement at Oklahoma State University. He is

currently interested in how social and psycholo-

gical processes affect corporate social responsi-

bility and organizational decision making.

Aime et al. 361



role innovation through employee social networks: the embedded nature of roles and their effect on...

Documents