Brokerage activities in creative industries have been significantly acknowledged, however, little consensus has been reached yet (Foster; Ocejo, 2010).
However, in most academic articles, brokering roles have been undergone from either one of this two approaches, thus leaving a gap in the literature which could intertwine both perspectives into one conceptual model. Furthermore, to comprehend better the concept of brokerage roles, not solely within, but also among organizational structure networks, live music industry will serve as a reference alongside this essay. In recent year, there has been a significant growth in numbers and diversity of music festivals which means that festival organizations and managers have been facing a diversity of new challenges (Getz & Andersson, 2008). Hence, knowledge management, seen as a set of “operational and administrative efficiency” practices can assist festival organizations to achieve long-term success (Nonaka; Takeuchi, 1995; Stadler; Fullagar; Reid, 2014).
First, this paper will review theories related to social networks and entrepreneurship, focusing on Burt’s (2004) typology and brokerage role as process. Second, special attention will be given to best practices in the field of festival events at both individual and organizational level. Finally, the reflection will go further with the development of an experimental model of network excellence, being inspired by the emergence of a new genre of music festivals, called showcases.
Theoretical Background
Brokerage role as a concept from social network theory has been constructed from different perspective. First of all, concept of brokerage in cultural industries seen as a structural position, allow a distinction between roles, functions and motivations (Foster; Ocejo, 2010). In that sense, brokers embody multiple formal roles, such as, gatekeeper, coordinator, representative, consultant or liaison (cf. appendix 1), however engaging in ‘restricted production’ at a given place and time (Foster; Ocejo, 2010). To complement and extend results from structure-centered research, Obstfeld, Bogatti and Davis ( 2014) implemented a processual view of brokerage strategies and motivations that alters interaction between two or more parties in a diversified of triadic structure: conduit, tertius gaudens, and tertius iungens that occur in a wide range of forms and combinations. Moreover, authors pointed out the need for brokerage intensity in order to be able to cope with the multiplexity and variances posed by heterogeneous networks (Obstfel; Bogatti; Davis, 2014). Knowledge brokers hence are miscellaneous actors, acting differently, depending on the flow of knowledge within and between different groups of actors (Gould; Fernadez, 1989; Boari; Riboldazzi, 2014). Drawing on Burt’s (2004) typology on how a broker can create value, Boari & Riboldazzi (2014) identified four functions, such as (a) making intermediated actors aware of the interests and problems of the other side, which is a transcoding function; (b) transferring best practices;(c) draw analogies between intermediated actors that have not been visible or were not considered relevant to them; and (d) trying to create new beliefs and behaviors by combining elements derived from the brokerage position, which is a synthesis function. “Networks do not act, they are context for action” (Burt, 2004, p. 354).
Finally, an ambitious study undertaken by Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998) considered social capital as multidimensional: (a) Structural dimension represented by network ties, network configuration, appropriable organization. (b) Cognitive dimension, that is, shared codes and language and shared narratives. (c) Relational dimension, as meaning of trust, norms, obligations and identification. The multidimensionality of social capital facilitates the creation of knowledge through a combination and exchange of intellectual capital, thus highlighting the competitive advantage of firms (cf. appendix 2). Nevertheless intentions to look at brokering opportunities from a broader perspective are not yet well-documented, therefore researches on merging brokerage role and network structure remain at an experimental stage. In the following paragraphs, specific cases study will exemplify best practices in the field of festival events.
Best Practices in the Festival Industry
Individual-level: Relational Capabilities
Emma Webster (2011) wrote her PhD thesis on live promotion in the UK and focused on the role of promoter in the live music scene (artists, audiences, venue coordinators, etc.), she found out that developing as well as maintaining strong ties was crucial to promoter’s success. Indeed, a promoter embodies different roles and function according to the context of the situation and to whom he or she may deal with. For example, in the phase of planning a live music event, the role of the promoter is to mediate between the artist and the venue (Webster, 2011, p.167). Moreover, brokerage role is seen as a process when she relates to the construction of social capital between promoters and venues, stating that (a) the venue welcomes back the promoter in the future, (b) the venue assists the promoter in promoting their show, (c) a personal relationships with the venue can lead to a more favorable hire fee. The author highlights the availability of formalized networking opportunities (local, national and international) within the field of cultural production, at a variety of conferences such as Festival Awards. However, her research paper does not address issues relative to the organization at such, but rather focuses on the role of individual.
Organizational Level: Performant Network Structure
Taking further the concept of knowledge brokers and implication of network structure on performance, an exploratory case study on three cultural festivals – Festivaletteratura (Mantua), Festival della Scienza (Genoa) and Festivalfilosofia (Modena, Carpi, Sassuolo) – held in Italy positioned brokers within a context (Izzo; Bonetti; Masiello, 2011). In their study, knowledge brokers, called Network orchestrator, represented by the organizing committee, embodies distinctive relational capabilities associated to the management of relationships, that is the “ability in selecting partners, a leadership style based on involvement and a horizontal relationship, ability to create trust, and ability to leverage resources” (Izzo; Bonetti; Masiello, 2011, p.224). Furthermore, they recognize that successful events feature a dual network structure, embodied by a combination of strong ties in the “core network” and weak ties in the “extended network”, as shown in the figure (cf. appendix 2).
To follow on implications of organizational network structure on performance, the case study of Queensland Music Festival shows how knowledge management is a relational construction shaped by the organization’s culture and structure (Stadler; Fullagar; Reid, 2014). The Queensland Music Festival is a massive event that occurs bi-annually in diverse locations in the area of Brisbane. Due to these reasons, its network structure is a very complex one that grounds its foundations in collaboration and interpersonal relationships. First, the collaborative organizational structure of the QMF is based on the support of new ideas and innovation that leads to a strong sense of belonging, as well as striving for the transparency of power-knowledge relations. Second festival organizers came up with this idea of building interdisciplinary team structure, called POD, consisting of “a producer, a project coordinator, and a technical manager, as well as one or two secondments during the festival” (Stadler; Fullagar; Reid, 2014). Thus the combination of a sense of belonging and trust relationships among the team members are key aspect to create and transfer knowledge by having a handful of knowledge brokers in the organization.
Before turning to industry events thought of as the best practice in brokerage role and network structure alliance. An article referring to model of innovation through knowledge brokering describes firms’ strategic advantages. According to Adrew B. Hargadon (1998), firms should prosper for innovation by accessing to a wide range of industries, as well as linking knowledge across industries and across context. That is, making use of analogic thinking (Boari; Riboldazzi, 2014), which means finding non-obvious connections between the actual problem and past ones, regarded as knowledge brokering. “Offer knowledge brokers an invaluable opportunity to learn more about the solutions and problems in any industry” (Hargadon, 1998, p.221).
Merging Relational Capabilities and Performant Network Structure
Recently, there has been a growing interest in industry event as the new battleground of social capital construction. According to Sam Wouter (2010) industry events epitomized by conferences and business meetings offer the greatest ‘brokerage potential’, as they represent “unique temporary occasions for entrepreneurs to share knowledge, develop industry standards and organize collective action” (Wouter, 2010, p.628). Network behaviors through which entrepreneurs may become brokers during industry events can occur through an heterogenous event participation and bridging structural holes (Wouter, 2010). Therefore, more an entrepreneurs will participate to a wide variety of events from different field and more likely brokering role will emerge, thus deepening analogic thinking (Burt, 2004; Hargadon, 1998, Wouter, 2010). Furthermore, entrepreneurs with broader prior career experiences has more likelihood to endowed in brokerage roles through event-bridging (Wouter, 2010). Henceforth, “network brokerage mediated the event participation-performance link (Wouter, 2010).
Music-related industry events such as the Reeperbahn Festival, the all2gethernow and the c/o pop represent the perfect German endowment for live industry events. All-three festivals has been though with an alternative format to enhance new ideas for new practices of music production. (SchüBler; Dobush; Lauri Wessel, 2014). For instance Reeperbahn and c/o pop have a focus on alternative music industry, live music and emerging artists, but welcome as well other creative industries. In the same vein, all2gethernow, based in Berlin, focuses on digital scene but propose also workshops and masterclasses on a wide range of open source movement. In 2009, the c/o pop organizers succeed in gathering important intermediaries, which were festivals and funding institutions from around the world, through an international networking platform untitled “Europareise”. Thus, by connecting with other industries, value chains are alternatively modelled (SchüBler; Dobush; Lauri Wessel, 2014). Moreover, those events were strongly regionally embedded, as local networks were important allies in all cases. For instance, Warner Music Central Europe was seen as a powerful partner because Bernd Dopp, Warner’s CEO mentioned Reeperbahn Festival (also based in Hamburg) repeatedly during the interview’s study, referring to this festival as the German music industry event (SchüBler; Dobush; Lauri Wessel, 2014). Therefore, triggered by Bernd Dopp’s words and the desire to develop further this idea of alternative formats to attract “different actors into the field, their visions of alternative forms of value creation in the music business, and by embedding events regionally to revive histories and idiosyncrasies of local music scenes in different cities” (SchüBler; Dobush; Lauri Wessel, 2014, p.430), will be openly-approach in the following paragraph.
Further Research
In an end-note, Boari & Riboldazzi (2014) called for further research that should investigate between different brokerage roles and the firm’s strategic orientation, – iungens versus gaudens – whether per se or in reference to its impact on the broker’s performance (Obstfeld, 2005). The idea would be to underpin the concept of network excellence, that is the network of networks, using showcases formats in music festivals as performant network structure excelling in brokerage role opportunities. Indeed, showcases festivals appear being the best potential for gatekeepers of the music industry. To what extend music business professionals and organizations can enjoy a strategic advantage from industry-event participation ? How can then turn knowledge management into success stories ?
Therefore brokers may be motivated by the desire to go beyond roles and fields boundaries – tertius transcendens – experimentally imagine through the hypothetic concept of Network Infinium…
Key Managerial Implication
As Hargadon (1998) says, the greatest challenge enabling innovation through knowledge brokering is “Getting the right knowledge in the right hands at the right time” (1998, p.11). But, how ? The following four key insights based on his article about knowledge brokering are still very relevant, farther exemplified by actual academic articles:
-
Exploring new territories: access to wider industry, linking knowledge across industries, alternative format.
-
Learn something about everything: industry event participation-performance link.
-
Find hidden connection: analogic thinking, interdisciplinary POD team structure.
-
Make it work: knowledge management, network brokerage among entrepreneurs.
Finally, festival managers should fight for a strong collaborative culture where a shared vision is embraced by individuals and teams (Nonaka; Takeuchi, 1995; Stadler; Fullagar; Reid, 2014).
Conclusion
To conclude, this paper explored news ways to comprehend the concept of brokerage behaviors and process by bridging the relational approach to the structural approach. Deriving from existing literatures, brokering roles have been taking further by adapting multiple case study in the field of festival management. A special attention was given to live music industry though, due to the emergence of a new genre – showcase festival. The author’s will is to pursue her research on knowledge management excellence, thanks to an opportunity internship in one of the greatest Italian showcase festival: Linecheck.
References
-
Andersson, T. D., & Getz, D. (2008, September). Stakeholder management strategies of festivals. In Journal of Convention & Event Tourism (Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 199-220). Taylor & Francis Group.
-
Boari, C., & Riboldazzi, F. (2014). How knowledge brokers emerge and evolve: The role of actors’ behaviour. Research Policy, 43(4), 683-695.
-
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American journal of sociology, 110(2), 349-399.
-
Burt, R.S., 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard Uni-versity Press, Cambridge, MA.
-
Foster, P. C., & Ocejo, R. E. (2015). Brokerage, mediation, and social networks in the creative industries. In The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries (pp. 405-420). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. California management review, 40(3), 209-227.
-
Izzo, F., Bonetti, E., & Masiello, B. (2012). Strong ties within cultural organization event networks and local development in a tale of three festivals. Event Management, 16(3), 223-244.
-
Lingo, E. L., & O’Mahony, S. (2010). Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 47-81.
-
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of management review, 23(2), 242-266.
-
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford university press.
-
Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 50(1), 100-130.
-
Obstfeld, D., Borgatti, S. P., & Davis, J. (2014). Brokerage as a process: Decoupling third party action from social network structure. In Contemporary perspectives on organizational social networks (pp. 135-159). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
-
Schüßler, E., Dobusch, L., & Wessel, L. (2014). Backstage: Organizing events as proto-institutional work in the popular music industry. Schmalenbach Business Review, 66(4), 415-437
-
Stadler, R., Fullagar, S., & Reid, S. (2014). The professionalization of festival organizations: A relational approach to knowledge management. Event Management, 18(1), 39-52.
-
Stam, W. (2010). Industry event participation and network brokerage among entrepreneurial ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 47(4), 625-653.
-
Webster, E. (2011). Promoting live music in the UK: a behind-the-scenes ethnography (Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow).
