SNA Flashcards
Definition and Importance
- Krackhardt and Porter were the first to apply this research to organizations in 1986
- SNA doesn’t focus just on individuals or organizations, but on the web of interrelationships among actors in an organization; it’s the connections that matter
- Follows current psychological trend to apply the interactionist perspective to org. behavior
- No universal theory; nodes have ties to each other which represent the presence or absence of a relationship
Antecedents
From Brass’s review
• Spatial, Temporal, and Social proximity
• Similar others (homophily)
• Reciprocal relationships easier to understand, but don’t always occur
• Human and social capital
• Personality: more structural holes occur with individualism, locus of control, and neuroticism
• Cultural differences based on individualism/collectivism
• Bridges make it possible for different clusters to be linked, strive to connect with dif. clusters for creativity
From class articles
• Similarity:
o homophily - race and ethnicity strongest (McPherson et al, 2001)
o social comparison theory (festinger)
o make friends with similars (Mehra et al 1998)
o based on gender. men more based on sex, women used other women for support but men for other (Ibarra, 1992)
Social capital definition
- Social capital refers to benefits derived from relationships with others. They can be individually focused, geared toward connecting with disconnected others or collectively focused, geared toward connection with others who have connections.
- More comprehensive definition: sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit
- It’s like a chair - comes in various shapes and sizes, but defined by its function.
Social capital background week
- Individual behavior is the result of rational action (thinking through things) and the effects of social structure (Coleman, 1998); ppl engage in cost-benefit analysis of adv/disadvan. of conforming to social norms, helping behaviors, etc.
- Social capital is the key to healthy societal functioning (Putnam, 1995; bowling alone)
- Benefits of social capital include information, influence, and harmony (Adler et al., 2002)
- Risks of social capital include over-embeddedness, rol/info overload, ineffective sharing of info (Adler et al., 2002)
- A broker has more social capital, but brokering may not be good in all contexts, particularly high commitment and collectivistic orgs
Social capital and centrality week
• Measures of centrality were strongly related to perceptions of influence by supervisors and peers, and to promotions at the supervisory level (Brass & Daniel, 1984)
Social capital and relationships week
- Because strong ties tend to have more in common, weak ties can actually be advantageous in because they allow individuals to form connections b/w groups (Granovetter, 1973).
- Additionally, weak interunit ties speeds up projects when the transferred knowledge is simple. Weak ties are not the cure-all though. They can be slows them down when knowledge is complex (Hansen, 1999).
- Also, Krackhardt (1992) showed that strong ties can be more important depending on the circumstance (case study)
- Finally, LaBianca et al. (2006) points out that we need to focus on negative relationships, too!
Social capital and cognition week
- People have poor recall of social situations. Bias toward long term patterns of attendance Freeman et al. (1987)
- Type of network was important to social capital. Advice > friendship for power (Krackhardt, 1999)
- Balance theory - distant unbalance ok; close emo tension motivated to change (Krackhardt & Kilduff (1999)
Social Capital: Group and network structure week
- How does the centrality of the leader help subordinates? LMX centrality (advice) related to influence, but depends on supervisor sponsorship. High leader cent. Helps, low hurts if share trust network ties Sparrow & Liden (2005)
- Diversity may not always be beneficial. Reagans et al (2004) found that diversity benefited team performance but: 1) it is difficult to manage the demographic composition and 2) ^diversity tends to decrease internal density which can decrease performance.
- Grp social capital - configuration w/in group members’ social relationships within the social structure of the group. Best when groups have internal closure of their network, but also have bridges to other groups.
Outcomes from Brass’s review
- Attitude contagion/emotional contagion
- Attitude formation
- Redundant roles can be good
- Job satisfaction: probably a curvilinear relationship with isolation/high degree of centrality
- Power: more central = more power
- Recruitment and selection: especially for referred applicants
- Socialization: for new hires, relates to social integration and organizational commitment
- Training: network connections are related to the extent of diffusion of training
From class we covered: Perf, turnover, and I/O outcomes like creativity and job design
Outcomes: job performance
- Under the heading “It isn’t who you know it’s who they think you know.” Kilduff & Krackhardt (1994); rep. boost
- Weak ties and structural holes greater social capital and social resources which were associated with promotions, salary, and career satisfaction.
- Personality affect social structure; (Mehra et al (2001) self monitoring led to more centrality over time. SM and centrality independently predict performance.
Outcomes: turnover
Contagion
Turnover can be contagious when individuals occupy similar informal roles (Krackhart et al., 1984).
Predictors
• Additionally, both job embeddedness (Mitchell et al., 2001) and network centrality and interpersonal citizenship behavior (Mossholder et al., 2005) are predictors of turnover.
Importance of relational ties
• Mossholder et al.’s finding that relational ties are important to consider is important as he/she points out that turnover is often presented within a relational context, but most studies fail to actually assess and measure this relational perspective.
Can be advantageous!
• Somaya et al. (2008) findings show that TO may be beneficial when people leave for a client or customer. However, it may be harmful when employees leave for competitors.
Outcomes: I/O
- Weak ties creativity centrality which diminishes creativity (Perry-Smith et al., 2003)
- Pos. and neg. gossip flows through friendship ties but only pos. goes through work ties (Grosser et al. 2010); both are negatively related to perf. (amt of time you spend in gossip), but pos. is related to peer evals
- > network density is related to autonomy, closed network = more redundant feedback; open network = more creative solutions; task sig. more likely if ties connected to other parts of the org.; homoph struc. divide soc. Support task signif and indentification (Kilduff & Brass, 2010)
Future directions
- Should examine the value of particular structural patterns within networks
- Take into account the individual personality variables of ability and motivation.
- Examine temporally, with special attention to how they change and why they change.
- Lab studies
Pros
• People don’t exist in a bubble; we don’t look at the macro level stuff enough and SNA helps with this
• Could be pretty inexpensive (computer-based)
• Graphic capabilities (NetDraw)
• Alternate way to look @ ties in I/O
o E.g., leadership
• Patterns of relationships in layers (diff. kinds of networks may relate more to what you’re studying)
• Follows current psychological trend to apply the interactionist perspective to org. behavior
Cons
- Participation Rate (>80%)
- Jargony; not very accessible
- Doesn’t have an established track record
- Memory issues (you may not always have an idea of others’ relationships)
- Data collection process is extensive
- P reactions to length and monotony
- Worry about anonymity
