What became fascinating to me was uncovering answers to puzzles that the world presented. That curiosity took me from Italy to the United States, to pursue a PhD in Social and Decision Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University. It was quite a leap-from Milan to Pittsburgh. 

And Pittsburgh in the 1990s was not the Pittsburgh people know today. It has since become quite vibrant and cosmopolitan, in part because of the influx of computer science and AI talent drawn to Carnegie Mellon and accustomed to perks that Pittsburgh has grown to offer. But back then, it was different: quieter, less polished. Still, it was a wonderful place to be a graduate student: affordable, intellectually rich, with access to great music-a cool jazz scene and one of the best symphony orchestras in the world. Not sophisticated in the way it is now, but in its own way, a deeply livable and enriching environment that changed my life for the better.

2. What's one interesting fact about you that your colleagues probably don't know?

I'd like to be a small comfort to anyone who blanks when asked for an "interesting fact" about themselves. I'm one of you. I am not an ultra-marathoner or a classically trained pianist or a serial bungee jumper-and yes, these are all "interesting facts" that I have heard from executives and colleagues. I'm not that interesting! My one claim to fame? I make a truly excellent tiramisù. It's unapologetically alcoholic, requires a bit of courage, and has been known to enchant.

What might be more relevant than tiramisù proficiency, especially to aspiring network scholars, is that when I got to Pittsburgh my mastery of the English language was…peculiar.  I could read very well, write quite well, and speak reasonably well, but my listening comprehension was another story entirely. In doctoral seminars, I would sit there watching people discussing academic articles, painfully realizing I was missing half of what was being said. I simply could not keep up as much of the conversation slipped past me, incomprehensible. 

It took me close to two years to truly get into the rhythm-to follow the rapid-fire exchanges, the humor, the nuances. It was a true trial by fire. But it was also a powerful lesson: you can begin this journey with a real handicap and still find your footing. If you're driven by curiosity, if you have a grasp of what makes good scholarship, and if you stay attuned to your natural gifts and keep cultivating those skills, you can push through even very large obstacles.

So no, I'm not especially "interesting." But I will make you a memorable tiramisù, and I've learned that tenacity tends to carry the day.

3. What aspects of network-related research are you most passionate about?

What I love is integrating complementary perspectives that often develop on parallel tracks but that together explain social phenomena much more fully-especially network and psychological approaches to understanding behavior in organizations.

The classic structuralist tradition in network research is astonishingly powerful-a revelation when one first encounters it, like I did when I started in the PhD journey-but it tends to downplay the person and the psychology of social processes. The traditional focus of network research is on patterns of relationships: who is connected to whom and how those patterns shape behavior. But organizations and social systems can't be reduced to structural topology. They are the foci of social networks made up of people who think, feel, interpret, and react. Unlike neural or molecular networks, organizational networks connect human beings, and that means psychology is always at play.

For me, acknowledging that is essential. When we bring affect and cognition back into the picture, we get a much richer and more realistic understanding of organizational life. This idea isn't new of course: early sociometric research in the 1950s and 1960s linked social structures with psychological processes quite seamlessly. And scholars like my mentor, David Krackhardt, have long emphasized the psychological foundations of networks. My work builds on that tradition and aims to push it further to give the interplay between structure and psychology a more central place in how we study and understand organizations.

This interdisciplinary stance is key to unlocking the explanatory power of linking the micro and the macro. Individuals are already incredibly complex, and that's why psychology is such a vast field. But we don't exist in isolation. We are constantly embedded in groups, organizations, and larger social systems. And many of the most important phenomena we care about as management scholars-collaboration, change, innovation, power-emerge at that higher level. They cannot be fully understood by looking at individuals alone. 

What excites me is precisely that move: connecting the richness of individual psychology with the structural dynamics of the larger systems in which people are embedded. That's where I think some of the most important insights about organizational behavior still lie.

4. What inspired your research interests in networks, and when did you realize that you want to be a network scholar?

I've always been drawn to people-how they behave and how they relate to one another. I've never considered myself a gifted observer in general, but patterns in human relationships and emotion have always stood out to me. Over time, I found a way to channel that instinct into studying behavior more systematically, both at the individual level and in organizations.

That said, I didn't start out with a clear calling for network research. My path into it was quite serendipitous. Early in my PhD at Carnegie Mellon, I was exposed to different ideas and ways of thinking about human behavior in social systems, and some simply resonated more than others. I followed that pull. In particular, encountering the work of Kathleen Carley and David Krackhardt was pivotal. They revealed to me what David crystallized as "the company behind the chart" in his classic 1993 HBR article. That idea immediately captivated me.

What struck me was the realization that formal organizational structures only tell part of the story. What also shapes behavior are the informal, emergent relationships-the patterns of who talks to whom, who seeks advice from whom, who is central and who is peripheral. These patterns aren't entirely designed; they emerge from people's discretionary choices, who they gravitate toward, who they avoid. And those choices fundamentally transform how organizations function.

I was especially fascinated by how David and Kathleen studied not just these networks themselves, but how people perceive them: how accurate or inaccurate we are in understanding the social structure around us. That really clicked for me, because it linked individual perception and behavior to the larger structures that shape organizational life.

Realizing that these structures were informal, emergent, and yet so consequential-that's what hooked me. By my second year, I had fully shifted my focus to social networks, and I've never looked back.

5. Would you like to give any advice to more junior researchers who are studying social networks?

I guess I could talk about the methodological advances that make social network research so exciting right now. I could talk about the perils and opportunities that big data and AI create for network researchers. I could advise junior scholars to break through the theoretical silos that still limit our ability to solve real organizational problems. But instead, I want to take this opportunity to remind young social network researchers why they study what they study. Why spend countless hours, days, and often years developing a paper that may or may not be published in a top journal, and may or may not be read? What makes all of that worth it?

For me, the answer lies in recognizing that most of what we do in life unfolds in organizations: the company that employs you, the public office you hold, the administrative unit that serves customers, the community association working to improve a town. These are all organized forms of collective life. We create them because so much of what we want to accomplish cannot be done alone. It has to be done with others. And once people come together around a shared goal, they have to organize their efforts; otherwise, there is only confusion and aimlessness. Organizations exist to bring together complementary competencies and expertise, and to structure them in ways that allow people to achieve together what none of them could achieve alone. That is why organizations permeate nearly everything we do, from the military to hospitals, from local banks to the technology giants that shape virtually every moment of our day. 

As network researchers, we generate essential knowledge about how these extraordinarily varied organizations actually function-or fail to function. We help explain how they achieve important collective goals, why they sometimes fall short, and why they can even become obstacles to social progress rather than vehicles for it. We need that knowledge, because so much of the wellbeing, achievement, and joy we can create in the world depends on well-functioning organizations. The more we understand the relational and structural forces that shape organizational life, the more meaningfully we can contribute to improving our social systems and, ultimately, human wellbeing. So yes, by all means, study "publishable" topics that will help you build a strong career in this peculiar profession of ours. But every once in a while, remind yourself why you chose to become a network scholar in the first place. Pause and reflect on how the knowledge you generate about the relational life of organizations-and about the structure of connections within and between them-can literally help make the world a better place.