Reputation, Gossip and Social Information Systems

The Evolution of Reputation: Information as Social Currency

Reputation is not a modern organisational concept. It is one of the oldest adaptive mechanisms in human social life, and its evolutionary roots run considerably deeper than any formal institution through which it is now expressed.

The adaptive logic of reputation begins with the cooperation problem established in the chapter on cooperation and coalitional psychology. Reciprocal altruism, the mechanism through which cooperation between non-kin evolves, requires that individuals be able to identify reliable cooperative partners and avoid unreliable ones. In a world of repeated interactions within a stable small group, direct personal experience provides this information: I know from my own history with you whether you are likely to reciprocate my investment. But as group sizes increase beyond the limits of direct personal knowledge, direct experience becomes insufficient. A mechanism for aggregating and transmitting cooperative reliability information across individuals who have not directly interacted becomes essential for sustaining cooperation at scale.

Reputation is that mechanism. Martin Nowak and Karl Sigmund's (1998) mathematical modelling of indirect reciprocity showed that cooperation can be sustained among individuals who have no direct history of interaction when reputation information circulates through the group: if I know through others' experience that you are a reliable cooperator, I will invest in you even though we have never interacted directly. The reputation system transforms bilateral reciprocity into a multilateral cooperative infrastructure, extending the reach of cooperation well beyond what direct personal experience alone could sustain. Nowak and Sigmund's work is a mathematical model and not a study of organisations, so applying it to workplaces is an extension of the argument made here.

The evolutionary significance of reputation is therefore not merely that it is useful but that it is foundational: it is the information architecture that makes large-scale human cooperation possible in the first place. Groups with robust reputation systems maintained cooperative norms more effectively, detected free-riders more reliably, and achieved higher collective performance than groups without them. The psychological mechanisms that produce, track, and respond to reputation information were under strong selection precisely because they were the infrastructure of collective life.

Milinski, Semmann, and Krambeck's (2002) experimental research demonstrated the functional power of reputation in cooperative contexts directly. In public goods games where participants could observe each other's contribution histories, cooperation rates were substantially higher than in conditions where contribution histories were hidden. The mere availability of reputation information changed the expected payoffs for all participants, because the knowledge that current behaviour would be observed and remembered altered the rational strategy for every player in the game. Reputation does not merely reward past cooperators: it changes the incentive landscape for everyone in the system.

For leadership, the implications of the evolutionary reputation framework are more substantial than the conventional advice to manage your personal brand. Reputation systems are not superficial social phenomena that leaders navigate strategically. They are the evolved infrastructure of cooperative life, and the information they carry about leadership quality, trustworthiness, and genuine commitment is being continuously assessed and acted upon by every member of the organisation through psychological systems that evolved specifically to perform this assessment. The formal authority structure that leaders occupy is a relatively recent institutional overlay on an evolved social information system that was performing leadership evaluation long before formal institutions existed.

Yuki's formal assessment process had evaluated Marcus and Petra through the institutional overlay: the metrics, the one-to-one conversations, the documented performance records. The division's informal reputation system had been evaluating them through the evolved infrastructure: the accumulated observations of experienced colleagues, the pattern recognition of people who had worked alongside both team leaders across hundreds of interactions, the social information that flows through informal networks and that may carry a kind of fidelity that formal systems find hard to replicate because it is not designed by anyone and is therefore harder to game in the ways that formal metrics reliably are.

Gossip as Social Intelligence: Dunbar's Reframing

The word gossip carries strongly negative connotations in most professional contexts. It is associated with malice, triviality, and the irresponsible spread of unverified information. Most organisations have cultural norms, sometimes formal policies, that discourage or penalise what is categorised as gossip. Most leadership writing treats it as a management problem rather than as an adaptive mechanism.

Robin Dunbar's (1996) social brain hypothesis framework produces a radically different account. Dunbar's research on primate social behaviour showed that great apes maintain social bonds through physical grooming: the time investment of grooming a coalition partner signals genuine relationship investment and produces the endorphin-mediated social bonding that sustains cooperative relationships. As human group sizes expanded beyond what grooming time could support, Dunbar argues, language evolved partly as a grooming substitute: a mechanism for maintaining social bonds and transmitting social information across groups too large for every member to groom every other member directly. On Dunbar's account, gossip is not a perversion of language's proper informational function. It is language's primary evolved function. This is Dunbar's argued hypothesis and not a settled finding.

Dunbar's analysis of human conversational content supports this interpretation empirically. Approximately two-thirds of conversation time in unstructured social settings is devoted to social topics (Dunbar, Marriott, and Duncan, 1997): who is doing what with whom, who can be trusted, who has behaved badly, who deserves recognition, how specific individuals are likely to behave in specific situations. This proportion has been observed across the settings studied, which suggests it may reflect a deep feature of human communicative psychology rather than a culturally specific habit. The proportion of conversation time devoted to social information exchange is not a failure to discuss more important things. It is the natural expression of cognitive architecture built to manage the social complexity of large-group cooperative life.

The content of this social conversation is not trivial. Dunbar, Marriott, and Duncan's (1997) analysis of conversational topics showed that social information exchange serves three primary functions that are directly relevant to cooperative life. The first is reputation tracking: the continuous updating of assessments of specific individuals' reliability, competence, and cooperative intent based on observed behaviour and reported observations. The second is norm monitoring: the identification and discussion of norm violations and norm-compliant behaviour that maintains the shared understanding of what the group's standards are and enforces them through the reputational costs that norm violation incurs. The third is relationship management: the maintenance of social bonds through the sharing of personal information that signals genuine investment in specific relationships.

Each of these functions is directly relevant to organisational life. The reputation tracking function produces the kind of distributed intelligence about colleague quality that Yuki's division had been generating about Marcus and Petra for months before she arrived. The norm monitoring function maintains the cooperative standards that the punishment chapter showed require distributed enforcement as well as formal authority enforcement. The relationship management function produces the social bonding that the ritual chapter showed is the evolved foundation of genuine organisational commitment.

The practical implication of Dunbar's reframing is not that leaders should encourage gossip indiscriminately. It is that the social information circulating through informal channels in any organisation is serving functions that, on Dunbar's account, evolved over a very long period to help produce accurate assessments of exactly the variables that matter most for cooperative performance: who is genuinely competent, who can be trusted, who is free-riding, and what the actual norms of the group are as opposed to what they officially claim to be. A leader who treats this information as noise is discarding the most sophisticated social intelligence system in their organisation.

The Accuracy of Informal Reputation: What the Evidence Shows

The intuition that gossip is unreliable, driven by social bias, personal animosity, and the distorting effects of social networks, is empirically testable and the evidence is considerably more nuanced than the intuition suggests.

Ralf Sommerfeld and colleagues' (2007) research on reputation and cooperation showed that second-hand reputation information can carry real signal, which is difficult to reconcile with the standard account of gossip as unreliable social noise. In their experimental paradigm, participants received second-hand reputation information about potential partners and made cooperation decisions based on that information. The cooperation decisions based on reputation information were significantly more accurate in predicting actual partner behaviour than chance would produce, suggesting that the reputation information being transmitted was carrying genuine signal about the individuals described. This is better-than-chance accuracy in a laboratory game; the study did not compare informal reputation with formal measures.

The accuracy of informal reputation information is partly explained by the aggregation properties of social networks. Individual observations of a person's behaviour are limited and potentially biased by the specific context and relationship in which they occur. But as observations accumulate across multiple independent observers across multiple contexts, the idiosyncratic biases of individual perspectives tend to cancel out and the signal about the person's genuine behavioural tendencies becomes more reliable. On the argument made here, the informal reputation system performs a distributed averaging function that can produce more accurate character assessments than any single observer's judgment.

Francis Flynn's (2003) research on favour exchange among employees showed that patterns of giving and receiving favours shaped how colleagues regarded one another, which is consistent with informal reputation tracking in workplaces, although it did not test how accurate that tracking is. The study shows that reputation forms and matters in workplaces. It does not show that the resulting assessments are more accurate than those of formal systems; that wider claim is the argument of this chapter, illustrated by Yuki's case.

A possible accuracy advantage of informal reputation systems over formal ones, argued here and not tested by the studies above, would reflect a difference in what each system is measuring. Formal performance metrics measure what can be quantified, documented, and attributed. Informal reputation systems measure what can be observed, recognised, and transmitted through social interaction. The most important variables for cooperative performance, including genuine commitment, honest communication under pressure, willingness to bear personal costs for collective benefit, and the specific subtle behaviours that distinguish genuine competence from performance management, are often more legible to informed informal observers than to formal measurement systems.

Marcus Bellini was managing his metrics. The formal performance system measured the metrics and assessed him as outstanding. His colleagues were observing his behaviour across hundreds of interactions that the metrics did not capture, forming accurate assessments of the gap between his measured performance and his genuine risk management quality, and transmitting those assessments through exactly the informal channels that Yuki had been trained to regard as unreliable. The informal system was right. The formal system was wrong.

Social Network Structure and Information Flow

Not all gossip is equally valuable, and not all informal information networks are equally effective at producing accurate distributed intelligence. The structure of the social network through which reputation information flows substantially determines the quality of the intelligence it generates.

Ronald Burt's (2004) structural holes research showed that individuals who bridge otherwise disconnected social clusters, occupying what Burt called structural holes in the network, have access to more diverse and more novel information than those who are embedded in densely connected clusters where everyone knows the same things. Information brokers who bridge structural holes are not merely well-connected: they are positioned to aggregate information from multiple independent sources in ways that produce genuine intelligence advantages over individuals embedded in single dense clusters.

For leaders, Burt's structural holes framework has a specific practical implication. The informal information networks of most organisations are not uniformly connected: they are clusters of dense local connection separated by structural holes that relatively few individuals bridge. The information about Marcus and Petra that circulated in Yuki's division was not circulating uniformly: it was concentrated in specific clusters of individuals who had direct observation experience, and it was not reaching Yuki because she had not yet built the bridging connections that would have given her access to information from multiple clusters simultaneously.

David Krackhardt and Jeffrey Hanson's (1993) research on informal networks in organisations distinguished three distinct network types that serve different functions. The advice network maps who goes to whom for task-relevant expertise and judgment. The trust network maps who shares sensitive information with whom. The communication network maps who talks to whom about work matters in general. Each network has different structural properties and carries different types of information. The informal reputation intelligence that Yuki needed was primarily in the trust network: the channels through which experienced professionals share genuine assessments of colleagues that they would not share in more observable contexts.

Trust network access requires trust network membership, and trust network membership is earned through the same costly signal logic that the chapter on costly signalling established. A leader who enters a division and immediately conducts formal one-to-ones and reviews performance data is accessing the formal information system. A leader who invests genuinely in the informal social relationships that create trust network membership, through the sustained personal investment that demonstrates genuine care for people rather than merely their outputs, gradually gains access to the qualitatively different information that flows through trust channels. This access cannot be manufactured quickly. It is earned through exactly the kind of genuine relational investment that the long-term mating psychology chapter showed is the foundation of genuine organisational trust.

Reputation, Ostracism and the Social Enforcement of Norms

The reputation system does not merely carry information about individual quality. It serves as the primary enforcement mechanism for cooperative norms in groups whose size exceeds what direct personal monitoring can cover. This enforcement function connects the reputation chapter directly to the punishment psychology of the chapter on punishment and strong reciprocity and the ostracism mechanisms of the chapter on ostracism and belonging.

Christoph Hauert and colleagues' (2002) modelling of public goods games showed that cooperation can be sustained without formal enforcement when individuals are free to opt out of the game, and the argument here is that reputation works on a similar logic, although Hauert and colleagues modelled opting out and not reputation, and their model is not a study of organisations: the threat of reputational damage plausibly provides a deterrent against free-riding that operates even in the absence of formal enforcement. The individual who considers violating a cooperative norm must calculate not only the immediate payoff of violation but the reputational cost of being identified as a norm violator, which affects their access to future cooperative partners across the entire network.

The reputational cost of norm violation in human social networks is substantially higher than rational choice models typically assume, because the evolved psychology of norm violator detection is specifically calibrated to detect and respond to the specific patterns of behaviour that distinguish genuine cooperators from free-riders. Cosmides and Tooby's (1992) cheater detection research established that humans have specific cognitive adaptations for identifying individuals who take benefits without reciprocating, adaptations that are more sensitive and more accurate than general reasoning capacities applied to the same problem. The reputational consequence of being identified as a cheater activates these evolved detection systems across the entire network, not merely among those directly harmed.

For leadership, the reputation-based enforcement function has a specific implication that extends the punishment chapter's argument. The punishment chapter showed that formal norm enforcement by leaders is essential because its absence signals tolerance of free-riding. The reputation chapter adds that informal reputational enforcement by the network is equally essential and operates through different mechanisms. Leaders who understand both the formal enforcement function and the informal reputational enforcement function will design organisational environments that support both rather than substituting one for the other or inadvertently undermining either.

The specific dynamic that Yuki's division exhibited illustrates this complementarity precisely. Marcus's norm violation, managing metrics rather than genuine risk quality, had been identified by the informal reputation system and was circulating as reputational damage within the trust network. But the reputational cost had not reached the formal enforcement system because there was no channel through which informal reputation intelligence could be input into formal accountability processes. The two systems were operating in parallel without connection, which meant the formal system was carrying inaccurate information while the informal system was carrying accurate information that could not influence formal decisions.

What Leaders Can and Cannot Access

The practical leadership challenge that Yuki's experience illustrates is not simply about trusting gossip more. It is about understanding what kinds of information are available through what kinds of channels, and designing leadership practice accordingly.

Mark Granovetter's (1973) weak ties research established one of the most important insights in social network theory: the information value of a social tie is often inversely related to its strength. Strong ties, close relationships characterised by frequent interaction, deep mutual investment, and high trust, tend to connect individuals who already share most of the same social information because they move in the same social circles. Weak ties, more distant acquaintances with less frequent interaction and shallower investment, tend to bridge different social clusters and therefore carry non-redundant information that strong tie networks do not contain.

For leaders, the weak ties insight has a counterintuitive implication. The close relationships that a leader invests most heavily in are likely to provide the least novel information, because those relationships are embedded in the same social cluster as the leader and therefore produce redundant information. The more peripheral relationships, the brief conversations with staff at different levels and in different functions, the informal contacts with people the leader does not know well, are more likely to carry the non-redundant information that provides genuine intelligence about what is happening across the organisation.

Yuki's formal one-to-ones over her first two months had been exclusively with her five team leaders: her five strongest ties in the new division. The information she received from those conversations was shaped by what those five individuals chose to share with a new director they were still assessing. The trust network intelligence about Marcus and Petra was held by individuals with whom she had no established relationship at all: the experienced underwriters in other teams whose weak tie status relative to Yuki meant they had no channel through which to share what they knew.

The implication is not that leaders should abandon strong tie investment in favour of weak tie accumulation. It is that genuinely informed leadership requires both: the deep relational investment that creates trust network membership and access to the most sensitive information, and the breadth of informal contact that creates weak tie access to the non-redundant information that strong tie networks do not provide. Walking the floor without an agenda, attending informal social gatherings, being genuinely curious about the work and perspectives of people at all levels of the organisation: these are not soft cultural practices. They are the specific behaviours that build the network architecture through which accurate social intelligence flows.

There is also information that leaders may be unable to access regardless of their network position, because it may circulate in channels from which leaders are structurally excluded. Sandy Pentland's (2012) research on social signals showed that significant quantities of meaningful social information are communicated through paralinguistic channels, including tone, pace, energy, and physical proximity, that are not intentionally communicated and are therefore not managed in the way that formal communication is managed. The inference drawn here, which goes beyond Pentland's research, is that this information is available to peers and subordinates who observe each other in unguarded contexts but is largely unavailable to leaders whose presence transforms the social dynamics of any setting they enter.

This is the structural information asymmetry that Yuki plausibly could not have solved through better network management: the conversations about Marcus and Petra that carried the most accurate assessments happened in her absence, plausibly because her presence would have changed what was said. The evolved psychology that produces accurate informal reputation assessment operates most freely when the subject of the assessment is not present and when the formal authority structure that shapes impression management is not activated. Leaders who understand this will be less surprised by the gap between what they observe directly and what their organisations actually know.

Reputation Management and the Authenticity Constraint

The costly signalling framework of the chapter on costly signalling applies with particular force to reputation management. Reputation is built through the accumulated record of costly signal production: the track record of having consistently borne the costs that genuine competence, genuine commitment, and genuine cooperative reliability require. It is lost through signal failure: through the detection of a gap between claimed quality and actual quality of the specific kind that Marcus Bellini's underwriting team eventually produced.

The authenticity constraint that the costly signalling framework implies is not merely a moral injunction to be honest. It is an evolutionary prediction about the stability of reputation strategies over time. A reputation built on genuine costly signals is stable because the quality it signals is real and therefore consistently delivered. A reputation built on managed metrics, strategic impression management, or the selection of contexts in which performance is measured, is unstable because the gap between claimed and actual quality will be detected eventually through exactly the informal observation networks that Dunbar's research describes.

Sonja Lyubomirsky, Laura King, and Ed Diener's (2005) review of the relationship between happiness and success showed that people who experience more positive affect tend to achieve better social and work outcomes. That review does not test claims about genuine versus performed character or the stability of reputation. The evolutionary argument developed here, which is the chapter's own, suggests that genuine positive traits, including conscientiousness, warmth, and cooperative reliability, should produce more stable and more extensive reputational benefits over time than strategic reputation management behaviours that lack the underlying genuine qualities they project. The informal reputation system may be sensitive to the difference between genuine and performed character in ways that formal assessment systems are less so, because informal observation accumulates across the full range of contexts in which a person operates rather than only those contexts in which formal performance is being assessed.

For leaders specifically, the authenticity constraint applies both to their own reputation management and to how they evaluate the reputations of others. A leader who understands that their own reputation is being continuously assessed through informal observation networks, and that the most accurate assessments will come from the people who observe them in unguarded moments rather than from formal performance processes, will invest in genuine character development rather than strategic impression management. A leader who understands that the informal reputations of their colleagues and reports are being assessed through the same networks will weight informal reputation intelligence appropriately when it conflicts with formal performance data.

Critical Examination: The Limits of the Reputation and Gossip Framework

The evolutionary framework for reputation and gossip is empirically grounded but several important limitations require honest acknowledgement.

The accuracy of informal reputation systems is genuine but not universal. The aggregation advantages that produce accuracy in stable, well-connected networks can be undermined by several specific conditions. In highly hierarchical organisations where status differences shape what information is shared and with whom, reputation information may systematically reflect positional bias rather than genuine quality assessment. In organisations with strong in-group and out-group dynamics of the kind described in the chapter on intergroup psychology and parochial altruism, reputation assessments of out-group members may be shaped by parochial bias rather than genuine observation. In fast-changing organisations where individuals move frequently between roles and contexts, the accumulated observation that produces reputation accuracy may not have time to develop before assessment decisions are required.

The distinction between accurate informal reputation and malicious social information is real and important. Dunbar's framework describes the adaptive function of social information exchange in stable cooperative groups with genuine shared interests. Organisations are not always such groups: they contain competitive dynamics, power asymmetries, and conflicting interests that can produce social information exchange that serves individual competitive advantage rather than collective intelligence. A leader who treats all informal social information as reliable reputation intelligence without distinguishing its sources, motivations, and network position will make different but equally consequential errors from those that come from dismissing all informal information as gossip.

Cultural variation, discussed in the chapter on cultural psychology, substantially affects both the content of reputation systems and the channels through which reputation information flows. In high power distance cultures, the information that flows through informal networks may be systematically shaped by deference norms that prevent accurate upward reputation information about senior figures from circulating freely. In tight cultures, the norms around what can be said about whom in what contexts constrain informal reputation exchange in ways that reduce the accuracy benefits of distributed observation. Leaders working across cultural contexts must calibrate their approach to informal reputation intelligence to the specific cultural norms that shape what their organisation's reputation system is actually measuring and how it is operating.

The privacy and fairness implications of leaders deliberately cultivating access to informal reputation networks require ethical awareness. The informal reputation information that circulates through trust networks does so partly because the people sharing it believe it will not reach formal authority channels. A leader who accesses this information and then uses it in formal performance decisions may violate both the social norms that make the trust network function and the legitimate expectations of the individuals whose informal assessments have been appropriated for formal use. The distinction between using informal intelligence to inform better questions and better attention versus using it as evidential input into formal decisions is practically and ethically important.

Key takeaways

• Reputation is an evolved social information mechanism whose adaptive function is enabling large-scale cooperation by extending the reach of cooperative reliability assessment beyond direct personal experience: the psychological systems that produce and track reputation information evolved under strong selection because they were the infrastructure of collective life, not a social epiphenomenon (for modelling of how this could work, see Nowak and Sigmund, 1998).
• On Dunbar's (1996) argued social brain hypothesis, gossip is language's primary evolved function rather than a perversion of it, a hypothesis and not a settled finding: Dunbar, Marriott, and Duncan's (1997) conversation data show that approximately two-thirds of human conversation time is devoted to social information exchange, a proportion observed across the settings studied and which may reflect cognitive architecture built to manage the social complexity of large-group cooperative life through social grooming by language.
• Informal reputation systems can carry real signal about cooperative reliability, and the chapter's argument is that in some conditions distributed observation across multiple independent contexts may aggregate away individual biases in ways that formal metrics find hard to replicate: the variables most important for cooperative performance are argued to be often more legible to informed informal observers than to formal measurement systems (second-hand reputation predicted behaviour better than chance in Sommerfeld et al., 2007; Flynn, 2003, did not test accuracy).
• Social network structure determines the quality and accessibility of reputation intelligence: trust networks carry the most sensitive assessments, structural holes produce information brokerage advantages, and weak ties carry non-redundant intelligence that strong tie networks do not contain, making network architecture a practical tool for improving organisational intelligence quality (Burt, 2004; Granovetter, 1973; Krackhardt and Hanson, 1993).
• The authenticity constraint of the costly signalling framework applies directly to reputation building: reputation based on genuine quality is argued to be stable while reputation based on managed metrics is argued to be unstable because the evolved informal observation network is likely to detect the gap between claimed and actual quality eventually, through channels that formal systems cannot easily access; this is an argument from theory and not a tested finding.
• Leaders may face a structural information asymmetry that network management cannot fully resolve: the most accurate informal reputation assessments about leaders themselves may circulate in channels from which leaders are excluded because their presence transforms the social dynamics of any setting they enter (an inference from Pentland's, 2012, finding that much social information travels through unmanaged paralinguistic channels), making genuine character development rather than strategic impression management the more viable long-term reputation strategy.
• The evolutionary accuracy advantages of informal reputation systems are genuine but conditional: hierarchical status bias, parochial in-group distortion, competitive rather than cooperative motivations, and cultural norms that constrain what can be said about whom all produce conditions under which informal reputation intelligence requires critical evaluation rather than straightforward acceptance.

Reflection questions

• Think about the informal reputation intelligence circulating in your organisation right now. What do the people in your trust network know about your colleagues, your direct reports, and your own leadership that your formal performance systems are not telling you? What specific relationships or network positions would give you access to that intelligence?
• Consider a significant personnel decision you have made or observed that turned out to be wrong. In retrospect, was the information that would have produced a better decision available somewhere in the organisation's informal reputation system? Why did it not reach the formal decision-making process?
• Examine your own reputation strategy. Is it built on the genuine costly signals of actual competence, genuine commitment, and honest communication under pressure, or on the management of observable metrics and visible performance? How stable is your reputation under the conditions where informal observation is most accurate?
• Map the informal network structure of your organisation or team. Where are the structural holes that produce information brokerage advantages? Who are the individuals whose network positions give them access to non-redundant information from multiple clusters? Are those individuals in your trust network?
• Reflect on how you currently use informal reputation information in formal decisions. Do you distinguish between reputation intelligence that informs better questions and better attention, and evidential input that would need formal verification before being used in formal accountability processes? Where is that distinction clearest and where is it most blurred?
• Consider the cultural context of your organisation's reputation system. What norms shape what can be said about whom through informal channels? Who is systematically over-protected or under-protected by the reputation system's cultural constraints? How does this affect the accuracy of the intelligence it produces?

References

1. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399.
2. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 163-228). Oxford University Press.
3. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1996). Grooming, gossip and the evolution of language. Harvard University Press.
4. Dunbar, R. I. M., Marriott, A., & Duncan, N. D. C. (1997). Human conversational behaviour. Human Nature, 8(3), 231-246.
5. Flynn, F. J. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 539-553.
6. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
7. Hauert, C., De Monte, S., Hofbauer, J., & Sigmund, K. (2002). Volunteering as Red Queen mechanism for cooperation in public goods games. Science, 296(5570), 1129-1132.
8. Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. R. (1993). Informal networks: The company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 104-111.
9. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-855.
10. Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H. J. (2002). Reputation helps solve the tragedy of the commons. Nature, 415(6870), 424-426.
11. Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 393(6685), 573-577.
12. Pentland, A. (2012). The new science of building great teams. Harvard Business Review, 90(4), 60-70.
13. Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H. J., Semmann, D., & Milinski, M. (2007). Gossip as an alternative for direct observation in games of indirect reciprocity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(44), 17435-17440.