| Social capital: The good, the bad, and the ugly |
| | Adler, Paul S. | U. of Southern California | padler@usc.edu | 818 981 0115 |
| | Kwon, Seok-Woo | U. of Southern California | skwon@usc.edu | 213-385-7017 |
| | A growing number of sociologists, political scientists, development economists, and organizational theorists have invoked the concept of social capital in their search for answers to a broadening range of questions confronting their own fields. Seeking to clarify the utility of the concept for organizational theory, this paper synthesizes the theoretical research undertaken in these various disciplines and develops a common conceptual framework that identifies the sources, benefits, and risks of social capital. |
| | Keywords: social capital; trust; network |
| An Integrated Examination of the Public and Private Good Aspects of Human and Social Capital |
| | Smith, Melvin L. | U. of Pittsburgh | melvins@pitt.edu | (412)-680-6954 |
| | While there appears to be a resurgent interest in the concept of social capital, there are two distinctly different streams of research that have emerged regarding the concept. One stream focuses on the public good aspect of social capital and examines the benefits of its creation to a collective group. The other stream focuses on the private good aspect and examines the benefits of its creation to a particular individual. This paper attempts to integrate these two streams of research as well as research on human capital to begin development of what I call a "theory of animate capital investment." The relationships between human capital and social capital are examined and propositions are set forth regarding when an individual would be more likely to invest in one form versus the other. Also examined are the conditions under which an individual would be more likely to invest in either human or social capital at the collective level versus the individual level. |
| | Keywords: social capital; human capital |
| Communal Social Capital, Linking Social Capital, and Economic Outcomes |
| | Oh, Hongseok | Pennsylvania State U. | hongoh@psu.edu | (814)-863-0597 |
| | Brass, Daniel J. | Pennsylvania State U. | dbrass@psu.edu | (814)-865-1522 |
| | Social capital research has suggested two distinct perspectives:(1) social capital resulting from embedded communal networks and (2) social capital from diverse linking networks. This paper explores some unanswered questions concerning these two different types of social capital: (1) How are communal and linking social capital different?; (2) How are these two types of social capital related to each other in the creation of social capital?; (3) How do they affect economic outcomes of individuals? We argue that communal social capital is derived from both the membership in communal groups (potential relations) and individuals' communal networks (actual relations in communal groups). Linking social capital is derived from diverse linking networks that span different groups and link people who are otherwise not connected. We expect that embedded communal social capital may be a critical vehicle for the development of linking social capital. Specifically, the characteristics of communal groups (size,
heterogeneity, cohesiveness, reputation), characteristics of individuals' communal networks (prestige and multiplexity), and individual personal attributes (self-monitoring personality orientation and human capital) are suggested as important antecedents for the creation of linking social capital. Finally, we argue that integrated networks combining both communal and linking ties may significantly influence the economic outcomes of individual actors. |
| | Keywords: social networks; social capital; community |
| Supervision and Social Capital |
| | Douthit, Mindy W. | U. of Chicago | mindy.douthit@gsbphd.uchicago.edu | (773)-529-6862 |
| | This study examines manger-boss relationships in terms of the network content in which managers work with their boss. "Bridge supervision"
refers to managers who share no important contacts with their boss; the supervisory relationship is a bridge between two social worlds.
"Embedded supervision" refers to managers whose supervisory relationship with the boss is embedded in mutual friends and advisors.
The structural hole and weak tie argument in network theory predict that bridge relationships enhance manager performance. This paper argues
that bridge relationships between manager and boss are an exception that can weaken the integration between manager and boss, and so
erode manager performance. I study network data on staff officers in two large financial organizations and find that managers under bridge
supervision are significantly less integrated with their boss, but returns to their social capital are not significantly damaged. |
| | Keywords: Social Capital; Manager-Boss Relations; Performance |
| Social Capital for Free: The Culture of Consideration amongst Engineers |
| | Nugent, Paul D. | State U. of New York, Albany | paul.d.nugent@gdds.com | (413)-494-6547 |
| | The concept of social capital promises to be a powerful framework with which to integrate many of sociology's "micro" concepts such as trust, embeddedness, and networks. Unfortunately no studies have been performed at the level of interaction to understand how social capital is formed. This paper describes the social capital formation process observed at a large defense contracting company. A non-sacrificial form of voluntary exchange called "consideration" was found to be pervasive amongst engineers and managers and pivotal to the development of relationships exhibiting high levels of social capital. Consideration differs from other forms of exchange such as markets, gift-giving, and charity in that it requires negligible sacrifice on the part of the giver. Consideration also forces us to rethink the assumption, ubiquitous in sociological treatments of exchange, that resources are zero-sum in nature - that a gain to one is necessarily accompanied by a commensurate loss to another. In the professional bureaucracy studied, managers and engineers develop a culture of consideration that is beneficial to each member individually and greatly enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of organizational outcomes. |
| | Keywords: Social Capital; Symbolic Interactionism; Economic Sociology |