On the one hand, companies that develop product and service innovations based on internal hierarchy seem to derive a significantly higher share of their income from innovation, compared to those relying on simple dyadic partnerships for sourcing innovation from the market.
Overall, participants favored dyadic partnerships that strove towards egalitarianism whereby financial, household, and child-rearing responsibilities were shared 50/50, yet readily acknowledged that they were prepared to step in to take care of things that a partner was neglecting.
As a consequence, these dyadic outsourcing partnerships can be considered as different from broadly defined networks, which entail a multiplicity of - at least, more than two - economic agents establishing regular multilateral ties for purposes of information and knowledge sharing, services exchange and, ultimately, economic gain.
Synergistic competition, about who brings what contribution to the common good, that of a team or any other dyadic or polyadic partnership among familiar individuals.
As a consequence, rather than getting involved in complex networks, firms may choose to simply rely on direct connections within the market (dyadic collaborations or partnerships), outsourcing innovation to suppliers or customers.
Collaborations or partnerships tend to be dyadic, that is, they generally involve two firms or two agents within a system.
Such "dyadic" data allow inferences about factors that distinguish different types of partnerships (e.g., primary versus casual or exchange-based relationships).
"Egocentric, Sociocentric, or Dyadic?
The dyadic variants are similar.
Dyadic unaccusatives and dependent ergative case.
