Page - (000283) - in Knowledge and Networks

280 It was not the first time that this member had used rival learning against other members of the network. The chief executive had already attracted attention on several occasions in the network with his noncompliant activities. The members had repeatedly informed the entrepreneur that his behavior violated the conventions of cooperation they had agreed on at one of the cooperative’s monthly meetings. In personal discussions, other members attributed the “persistence” of this unfriendly imitation to a lack of sanctions on such behavior and the ineffectiveness of the dis- approval of actually engaging in opportunism. Nevertheless, no attempts were made to exclude this member from Comra.de: This is the legendary black sheep who will always be a black sheep. The fact that this com- pany has a very similar level of knowledge makes this process [of imitation] much easier. I am concerned, once again, about this action. At some point or other he will have to learn— and yet apparently we haven’t made a major impression—because he has never been thrown out. OK, he’s a tenant here, he has a whole floor. If we throw him out, then we have a problem. He won’t cease to exist in a city like this, either. He’ll still be there. Until now, we thought that we would [keep] that crazy guy under control, give him a bit of guidance and influence him. (Network spokesperson, November 2010)3 The analysis of the interviews suggests two findings. First, although the deviant firm imitated a potential economic product from its network colleagues, a formal exclusion was not possible. According to the network policy that had been formal- ized and circulated among all members, competition between network members must not be hampered under any circumstances. Technically, the instance of unfriendly imitation was not a violation of codified rules, for the perpetrating firm produced its solution with own resources and partners for their own, separate cus- tomer. Second, the consequences of excluding the deviant firm from membership would have been more serious for the rest of the network than for the black sheep. Thus, the other members decided to maintain membership but to withdraw from the conventions of cooperation, that is, of exchange knowledge and friendly imitation. If they stopped knowledge exchange with the black sheep, they would still benefit from observing its activities as long as that member continued to have its offices in the same building as they did. The members thereby sanctioned the taboo-breaker not by formal exclusion but by articulated disapproval and soft exclusion from inter- nal forms of cooperation: They no longer invited that member to joint activities and excluded it from open knowledge exchange and collaborative projects. Moreover, that member was suspended from the “cafeteria atmosphere” at lunch time and from unofficial management meetings. As one member firm reported, “[The black sheep] will be isolated, and nobody will talk to them any more” (Interview, November 3 The term “black sheep” was used in this specific case of unfriendly imitation. Actually, both the rule-breaking member and the network have been very successful in business. Whereas the net- work relies on friendly imitation, the deviant member firm relies on a supply network consisting of business firms outside Comra.de. At the time of our investigation in 2010 and 2011, this firm reported 23 employees but had expanded to more than 100 people by the time of this chapter’s publication in 2016. For lack of space in the joint office building, the member chose to resign from the network to pursue its own business and growth strategies, upon which it had embarked in the previous years. J. Glückler and I. Hammer