企業必須跳脫劣勢情境，才能有效取用優勢資源，進而改變社會地位。過去社會網絡理論提出強弱連結差異，強連結可以降低交易成本，弱連結常是創新與異質資源來源；不過卻少討論社會網絡中的地位優劣差異，劣勢地位者如何取得優勢連結，進而取用資源，成為本研究重點。本文調查台灣知名夜市如何謀取優勢資源以改變社會地位。貢獻一，由社會場域辨識優勢者的隱憂，以建構連結契機。貢獻二，由劣勢資源的社會價值，交換優勢資源的經濟價值，並由多次交換建構社群網絡。貢獻三，由外部地位進化推動內部結構演化，以改變劣勢者的核心價值。實務貢獻言，本研究提醒組織應學會換位思考以辨識機會；換價得利以取用優勢資源；換取新機以創新資源價值。

Organizations have to leverage advantageous resources to break through the inferior situations and reshape social positions. Social network theory suggests organizations to have strong tie to reduce transaction cost, or to have weak ties to get heterogeneous resources. However, the inferior social position in the network becomes a missing link for social network theories. How the weak actor builds the social ties and leverages advantageous resources needs more discussion. This study investigates a well-known night market in Taiwan and learns how it transforms its social position strategically. There are three main theoretical contributions. First of all, this paper emphasizes the importance of opportunity recognition to build link with the strong actors by detecting the weakness of the strong. Secondly, this paper suggests players who posited at inferior situations have to redefine its resources’ social value to exchange for advantageous resources. Also, by multiple resource exchange process, organization could turn the weak ties into strong ties with particular social club. Thirdly, this paper highlights the importance of social reposition to explore more opportunities. By upgrading the social positions, organizations also experience internal transformation for more advantageous resources. Practically, this article suggests organizations to recognize opportunities by repositioning itself at the advantageous situations and redefining resource values for exchange. By upgrading its social positions, organizations may explore more opportunities for more advantageous resources.

本文探討企業身處劣勢情境，如何透過一系列資源連結與交換機制，改變社會地位。本研究以台北寧夏夜市為案例，解析寧夏夜市如何辨識結構漏洞，以取得連結契機；重新定義資源價值，包括經濟性與社會性價值，以交換取得優勢資源；最終則是資源連結的由弱轉強，由單一到多元，以互補增益社會價值網絡。相較於過去社會地位論述強調有形模仿、無形抗爭與隱形機構合作等作法，本研究特別由社會網絡連結角度，思考劣勢脫貧的地位升級之道。 在管理實務上，本研究提出，企業在資源有限的現實上，尤其是資源相對匱乏的中小企業，更要用心改變劣勢地位，以爭取優勢資源。本研究由三個子案例循序漸進說明組織如何取得機構認同資源、金融服務資源、與資訊管理資源，並在每一層價值網絡中，由弱連結到強連結的社會地位形塑歷程。資源的社會性價值、資源的社會性交易、與社會網絡價值的相互增益性，可以成為組織投入劣勢管理的邏輯思維。未來組織還可以從更細緻的社會面向反思資源的社會價值，以交換取得優勢資源。 本研究對經理人的啟示在於，學習以小謀大的智慧，終能鯉越龍門。看似位處社會邊陲的弱勢者，若能學會辨識優勢者的脆弱點，掌握優勢網絡的結構漏洞，就有機會建立優勢連結，從而建立資源臍帶，由弱而強稼取可用資源。由此，改變劣勢地位的作法，正在建立與優勢者的資源連結，而這需要不斷辨識機會之窗。單純由經濟價值顯然看不到連結機會，必須由社會價值重新檢視優勢者的「社會弱勢」，就有機會重新定義資源價值，啟動資源交換機制，進而逐步改變劣勢地位。 對台灣中小企業的政策補助言，本研究也提出重要提醒。目前經濟部在規劃中小企業補助計畫時，總習慣由單純經費補助角度思考；但實則，若能由機構認證資源、金融服務資源或資訊整合資源檢視中小企業需求，更能發揮效益。由社會性價值檢視中小企業的資源內涵與資源需求，從而對症下藥，將可以產生以小搏大的資源創價效益。

蕭瑞麟、歐素華、蘇筠，2017，「逆強論：隨創式的資源建構樣貌」，台大管理論叢，27卷4期：1~32。(Hsiao, R. L., Ou, S. H., Su Y., “Inversing the Powerful: Process of Resource Construction through Bricolage,” NTU Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1-32.)
Ahuja, G., 2000, “ Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study, ” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 3, 425-455.
Ahuja, G. and Lampert, C., 2001, “Entrepreneurship in the Large Corporation: A Longitudinal Study of How Established Firms Create Breakthrough Inventions, ” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 6-7, 521-543.
Alvarez, S. A., Young, S. L., and Woolley, J. L., 2015, “Opportunities and Institutions: A Co-creation Story of the King Crab Industry, ” Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 30, No. 1, 95-112.
Barney, J. B., 1991, “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No.1, 99-120.
Bechky, B. A. and Okhuysen, G. A., 2011, “Expecting the Unexpected? How SWAT Officers and Film Crews Handles Surprises,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54, No. 2, 239-261.
Borgatti, S. P. and Foster, P. C., 2003, “The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology,” Journal of Management, Vol. 29, No. 6, 991-1013.
Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., and Labianca, G., 2009, “Network Analysis in the Social Sciences,” Science, Vol. 323, No. 5916, 892-895.
Brannen, M. Y., 2004, “When Mickey Loses Face: Recontextualization, Semantic Fit, and the Semiotics of Foreignness,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29, No. 4, 593-616.
Burt, R., 2001, “Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital,” In N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. Burt (Eds.), Social Capital: Theory and Research, 1st, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Burt, R. S., 1992, “Structural Holes : The Social Structure of Competition,” 1st, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. S., 2005, “Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital,” 1st, New York: Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H. W., 2003, “The Era of Open Innovation,” Sloan Management Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, 35-41.
Dacin, M. T., Munir, K., and Tracey, P., 2010, “Formal Dining at Cambridge Colleges: Linking Ritual Performance and Institutional Maintenance,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, No. 6, 1393-1418.
Delmestri, G. and Greenwood, R., 2016, “How Cinderella Became a Queen: Theorizing Radical Status Change,”Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 4, 507-550.
Drucker, P. F., 1985, “Innovation and Entrepreneurship Practices and Principles,”1st, New York: Harper & Row.
Ei, S. and Arie, Y. L., 2017, “A Resource Dependence Perspective on Low-Power Actors Shaping Their Regulatory Environment: The Case of Honda,” Organization Studies, Vol. 38, No. 8, 1039-1058.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Schoonhoven, C. B., 1996, “Resource-Based View of Strategic Alliance Formation: Strategic and Social Effects in Entrepreneurial Firms,” Organization Science, Vol. 7, No. 2, 136-150.
Granovetter, M. S., 1973, “The Strength of Weak Ties,”American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 6, 1360-1380.
Hanneman, R. A. and Riddle, M., 2005, “Introduction to Social Network Methods,” 1st, Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside.
Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. I., 1997, “Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 4, 716-749.
Nohria, N., 1992, “Introduction: Is a Network Perspective a Useful Way of Studying Organizations?” In N. Nohria, and R. G., Eccles (Eds.), Networks and Organizations: 1-22. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Penrose, E., 2009, “The Theory of the Growth of the Firm,” 4th, New York: Oxford University Press.
Podolny, J. M., 1994, “Market Uncertainty and the Social Character of Economic Exchange,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.39, No. 3, 458-483.
Shane, S., 2000, “Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities,” Organization Science, Vol. 11, No. 4, 448-469.
Siegel, D. S. and Renko, M., 2012, “The Role of Market and Technological Knowledge in Recognizing Entrepreneurial Opportunities,” Management Decision, Vol. 50, No. 5, 797-816.
van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., and de Rochemont, M., 2009, “Open Innovation in SMEs: Trends, Motives and Management Challenges,” Technovation, Vol. 29, No. 6-7, 423-437.
Waldron, T. L. and Fisher, G., 2015, “Social Entrepreneurs’ Rhetorical Strategies,” Proceedings of the Academy of Management, Briarcliff NY.
Waldron, T. L., Fisher, G., and Navis, C., 2015, “Institutional Entrepreneurs' Social Mobility in Organizational Fields,” Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 30, No. 1, 131-149.
Wright, A. L. and Zammuto, R. F., 2013, “Creating Opportunities for Institutional Entrepreneurship: The Colonel and the Cup in English County Cricket,” Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.28, No. 1, 51-68.
Yin, R. K., 1994, “Case Study Research: Design and Methods,” 5th Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.