The Secret to Good Performance? It Lies in the Relationships You Can’t See
In today’s workplace, networking is often portrayed as simply a matter of numbers: the more contacts you have, the more opportunities open up for you. It’s an intuitive view, but a simplistic one. Research published in the Academy of Management Journal suggests that the real competitive advantage depends not so much on how many people we know, but on how our relationships are organized and how different social networks intertwine.
The study, "The Ties That Nurture: Expressive Simmelian Ties, Instrumental Brokerage, and Individual Performance", by Giuseppe Soda and Marco Tortoriello (both from Bocconi’s Department of Management and Technology) along with Manuel Gomez-Solorzano (Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile), introduces a concept destined to become central to the literature: structural complementarity.
“We define networks’ structural complementarity as the performance-enhancing effect that arises from occupying distinct structural positions in networks of different natures.”
In other words, people achieve better results when they are able to occupy different roles in different networks, leveraging the specific advantages of each. It is therefore not just a matter of building relationships, but of building configurations of relationships.
Opportunities and vulnerabilities: the role of brokers
To understand this phenomenon, we must start with a well-known type of position: brokers. These are individuals who connect groups or people who would otherwise not be in contact. They are the ones who intercept new information, uncover hidden opportunities, and bring together ideas from different worlds.
This role is often associated with high performance. But this research adds an important nuance: not all brokers are equally successful. Being at the center of heterogeneous information flows also entails high costs: cognitive overload, uncertainty, and tensions between differing expectations. In some cases, those who act as bridges even risk being viewed with suspicion by those they connect.
“These ties provide support, cognitive clarity, and social legitimacy, enabling brokers to better evaluate, mobilize, and act on diverse knowledge.”
The point, therefore, is not merely to have access to a wealth of information, but to be able to transform it into effective decisions. And this is where a second level of relationships comes into play—less visible but equally crucial.
The hidden value of trust-based ties
Alongside instrumental networks (those we use to work, seek advice, and exchange information) exist expressive networks, based on trust, friendship, and mutual support. These relationships are less focused on immediate goals but are fundamental to giving meaning and stability to our actions.
The study shows that these networks become particularly powerful when they take the form of Simmelian ties—that is, small, closed groups in which everyone is interconnected. Within these micro-communities, dynamics develop that are difficult to replicate elsewhere: open discussion, sincere feedback, and alignment of perspectives.
“Simmelian expressive ties amplify the benefits of instrumental brokerage while alleviating its cognitive and emotional strain.” (p. 384)
It is in these contexts that the broker can put to good use what they have gathered elsewhere: testing ideas, assessing their feasibility, and building initial consensus. At the same time, these relationships strengthen the broker’s legitimacy, making it easier to convince others to adopt new solutions.
Networks converge: the impact on performance
The researchers studied four very different contexts—ranging from the HR department of a multinational corporation to a luxury hotel, and including research laboratories in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical sectors—and consistently observed the same pattern.
Those who combine open positions in instrumental networks (i.e., brokers) with strong cohesion in expressive networks achieve significantly better results than those who possess only one of the two elements. In some cases, such as in research and development contexts, this translates into up to twice as many patents as their less “balanced” colleagues.
The most innovative ideas, therefore, often emerge at the margins of networks, where information is diverse and non-redundant. But transforming them into concrete results requires a stable relational environment capable of offering support, trust, and coordination.
It is not enough, therefore, to be well-connected, nor is it enough to have strong relationships: the real advantage comes from the intelligent combination of openness and cohesion. For organizations, this means moving beyond superficial networking policies and designing environments where people can simultaneously explore new connections and build deep, trusting relationships.
