filip agneessens department of sociology, ghent university different theories and measures of social...

Filip Agneessens Department of Sociology, Ghent University

Different theories and measures of social capital:Application in a knowledge-intensive work environment

1 Theories and measures of social capital – Filip Agneessens - 18/07/2006Research Methods Festival, St Catherine’s College Oxford

Social capital and knowledge-intensive work

Theories and measures of social capital – Filip Agneessens - 18/07/2006Research Methods Festival, St Catherine’s College Oxford

2

A number of evolutions:– growing computerization, – increasing technologically complex worksituation – multifunctional job description– increase in knowledge=> increasingly difficult for a person to possess all the

necessary knowledge at all times- increasing division of expertise, skills and information

between employees Increasing importance of exchange of information and

collaboration = social relations between colleagues

AIM: The importance of social relations for the explanation of differences in performance of employees

Social capital

• “Social structure is a kind of capital that can create for certain individuals or groups a competitive advantage in pursuing their ends. Better connected people enjoy higher returns”. (Burt, 2000: 32)


3

Social relations => «social capital» literature- General concept with broad field of applications

Focus on «social structure» “competitive advantage” => here: performance Result of “better connected”…

Social capital: dimensions

Discussion about:- 1) how does social capital emerge?- 2) what structural properties should we consider?


4

But … when is someone “beter connected”?

Social capital: dimension 1

QUESTION 1: How does social capital emerge?Relations between people emerge:

- Active creation of social relations by actors- Intentional aimed at improving performance (specific aim)


5

Or:- Passive created social relations (by others)- Or active, but aimed at other aims than improving

performance

QUESTION 2: What aspects of the social structure are important?

EGOEGO• The importance of the

relations themselves Have lots of contacts

EGO

• The importance of the characteristics of the people one is connected with

contacts with the « right » persons (sources, norms, ideas, …)

EGO

• The importance of the larger structure between the persons one is connected to

Underlying structure of persons one is connected with

EGO

Social capital: dimension 2


6

Social capital: dimensions and approaches

Dimension 1:- Active and intentional = « instrumental »- Passive and/or not-intentional = « embedded »

Dimension 2:- Relations- Characteristics - Structure

When we combine both dimensions we obtain 6 general approaches (ideal-typology):


7

Social capital: ideal-typology of approaches


8

Active and purposive strategy (improve

performance)

Passive and/or not (originally) aimed at

improving performance

Tie-approach

Relations

Alter-approach

Characteristics

Structural approach

Structure

A. Advice

D. (shared) normsC. Resourceful alters

E. Open structures F. Closed structures

B. Trust, conflict, friendship, social support

Data


9

Network boundary and data

Network dataset and boundary• company of 70 lawyers (Lazega, 2001)

Survey• Advice, friendship and collaboration• Partners and associates• Seniority• 3 places

Performance• Amount of dollars « gained »


10

Human capital model


11

“Human capital” model


12

Beta VIF

Seniority 0,673 *** 1,299

Office II 0,217 ** 1,065

Office III -0,015 1,117

Litigation -0,099 1,040

Gender 0,141 1,153

Law School 2 -0,054 2,149

Law School 3 -0,036 2,117

R² = 0.614

A: TIE-approach: advice


13



14

Active and intentional strategy (improve

performance)

Passive and/or not strategic aimed at improving

performance

Tie-approach

Relations

Alter-approach

Characteristics

Structural approach

Structure

A. Relations that have explicit aim of improving performance=> advice(e.g. Granovetter’s «weak ties»)

TIE-approach: advice

• Being asked for advice by colleagues (indegree) Positive effect selection?


15

• Ask advice to others (outdegree) No effect reason?

Tie model


16

Beta VIF

Seniority 0,521 *** 1,654

Office II 0,274 *** 1,104

Office III 0,075 1,230

Litigation

-0,143 * 1,061

Gender 0,053 1,237

Law School 2 0,023 2,214

Law School 3

-0,008 2,126

Indegree Advice 0,031 1,142

Outdegree Advice 0,382 *** 1,648R² = 0.709 (R² = 0.620 for model with advice outdegree only)

TIE-approach: advice

Explanations for absence of positive effect of advice-seeking:EXPL 1: information from whom? alter-approach


17

EXPL 2: How useful (unique) is the information? structural approach

EXPL 3: How do other relations help/hinder the advice seeking?

influence of other relations (= indirect effect) = tie approachEXPL 4: What is done with the information?

Interaction with broader context (other relations) = tie approach

B: TIE-approach: other relations


18

Tie model


19

Beta VIF Beta VIF

Seniority 0,521 *** 1,654 0,527**

* 1,711

Office II 0,274 *** 1,104 0,264**

* 1,171

Office III 0,075 1,230 0,065 1,347

Litigation

-0,143 * 1,061 -0,145 ° 1,164

Gender 0,053 1,237 0,048 1,351

Law School 2 0,023 2,214 0,027 2,231

Law School 3

-0,008 2,126 0,016 2,331

Indegree Advice 0,031 1,142 0,044 1,622

Outdegree Advice 0,382 *** 1,648 0,406**

* 2,388

Indegree Friend -0,052 3,153

Outdegree Friend -0,044 3,042

Multiplexity Advice-Friend 0,042 2,735

R² = 0.709 and 0.712 (R² = 0.620 for model with advice outdegree only)



20


performance)


performance

Tie-approach

Relations

Alter-approach

Characteristics

Structural approach

Structure


B. Consequences of embeddedness in social networks=> social support, friendship…(e.g. Krackhardt’s «philos»)

TIE-approach: friendship

FRIENDSHIP


21

No indirect effect through advice (causality?)

performance

others friends

• No effect of considering others more often as friends

Ask advice

to others

performance

Consider other

friends

• No effect of considering more others friends on advice

TIE-approach: friendship


22

• Interaction-effect: Friendship and advice

advice performance

friendship

• No effect No social aspects that improve trust of information asked

C: ALTER-approach: resources


23



24


performance)


performance

Tie-approach

Relations

Alter-approach

Characteristics

Structural approach

Structure

A. Relations that have explicit aim of improving performance=> advice(e.g. Granovetter’s «weak ties»)C. Strategic choice of specific alters=> Importance of sources (Diversity)(e.g. Burt, 1983 social circles)


ALTER-approach: resources

Importance of asking advice from:


25

>1) Persons who have lots of resources (hierarchy = gray)

>2) Persons who have resources

that are complementary to ones own resources (ego) (complementarity)

>

OR

3) Persons who differ between each other in the type of resources (diversiteit)

Positive effect

Negative effect (similar = +)

No effect

Advice model


26

Beta VIF

Seniority 0,451 *** 2,090

Office II 0,193 * 1,096


Litigation

-0,064 1,192

Gender 0,089 1,286

Law School 2

-0,004 2,371

Law School 3 0,018 2,350

Outdegree Advice 0,042 1,134

Alter Outdegree Advice¹ 0,236 * 2,083

Difference Ego-Alter Outdegree Advice¹

-0,258 ** 1,546

Difference Between Alters Outdegree Advice¹ 0,086 1,544

R² = 0.697 (R² = 0.620 for model with advice outdegree only)

D: ALTER-approach: norms


27



28


performance)


performance

Tie-approach

Relations

Alter-approach

Characteristics

Structural approach

Structure


D. Shared norms, expectations, ideas=> Consequence of homophily(e.g. Krackhardt’s Simmilian ties)

C. Strategic choice of specific alters=> Importance of sources (Diversity)(e.g. Burt, 1983 social circles)


ALTER-approach: norms

Importance of being friends with:


29

>1) Persons who have specific (beneficial) norms

<2) Persons who have similar norms

to ego (similariteit)

<

OR

3) Persons who have consistent (same) norms between each other (consistency)

Negative effect (=> friends with associate better)

No effect

No effect

Friendship model


30

Beta VIF

Seniority 0,577 *** 1,788

Office II 0,195 * 1,195


Litigation

-0,076 1,184

Gender 0,100 1,294

Law School 2

-0,015 2,235

Law School 3 0,013 2,248

Outdegree Friend 0,064 1,168

Alter Outdegree Friend¹

-0,257 ** 1,473

Difference Ego-Alter Outdegree Friend¹

-0,051 2,694

Difference Between Alters Outdegree Friend¹ 0,029 2,742

R² = 0.669 (R² = 0.617 for model with advice outdegree only)

E: Structural approach: open structures


31



32


performance)


performance

Tie-approach

Relations

Alter-approach

Characteristics

Structural approach

Structure




E. Strategic choice of relations with others that are less connected=> Open structures(e.g. Burt’s «Structural holes»)


Structural approach: open

Open structures:Ask advice from persons that do not ask each other for advice


33

EGO- More unique information- Use unique position

No effect (advice or friendship)

F: Structural approach: closed structures


34



35


performance)


performance

Tie-approach

Relations

Alter-approach

Characteristics

Structural approach

Structure




E. Strategic choice of relations with others that are less connected=> Open structures(e.g. Burt’s «Structural holes»)

F. Relations with persons who are connected to each other=> Closed structures(e.g. «closure» - Coleman, 1988)


Structural approach: closure

- Trust/dependence- Complex info - No new, simple information (same info from different

persons)


36

EGO

Closed structures:

Friends to people that are themselves friends

Negative effect of closed triades for friendship Strong internal relations

• Control about what is acceptable (expectations)• Reduces possibilities for asking advice from outside

group

Advice model


37

Beta VIF Beta VIF

Seniority 0,451 *** 2,090 0,437**

* 2,178

Office II 0,193 * 1,096 0,207 ** 1,135

Office III 0,007 1,178 0,013 1,190

Litigation

-0,064 1,192 -0,065 1,355

Gender 0,089 1,286 0,090 1,287

Law School 2

-0,004 2,371 0,003 2,387

Law School 3 0,018 2,350 0,008 2,399

Outdegree Advice 0,042 1,134 0,042 1,136

Alter Outdegree Advice¹ 0,236 * 2,083 0,248 * 2,424


-0,258 ** 1,546 -0,302 ** 2,044

Difference Between Alters Outdegree Advice¹ 0,086 1,544 0,227 6,357

Closed Advice triads¹ 0,038 1,668

Open Advice triads¹ -0,154 5,475


Friendship model


38

Beta VIF Beta VIF

Seniority 0,577 *** 1,788 0,625**

* 1,904

Office II 0,195 * 1,195 0,191 * 1,208

Office III 0,003 1,352 0,034 1,462

Litigation

-0,076 1,184 -0,044 1,262

Gender 0,100 1,294 0,081 1,323

Law School 2

-0,015 2,235 0,038 2,338

Law School 3 0,013 2,248 0,094 2,526

Outdegree Friend 0,064 1,168 0,065 1,174

Alter Outdegree Friend¹

-0,257 ** 1,473 -0,350

*** 1,801


-0,051 2,694 -0,154 4,512

Difference Between Alters Outdegree Friend¹ 0,029 2,742 0,140 6,635

Closed Friend triads¹ -0,229 * 1,990

Open Friend triads¹ 0,044 2,366


Friendship and advice model


39

Beta VIF Beta VIF

Outdegree Advice 0,053 1,515 0,062 1,588

Outdegree Friend

-0,011 1,732 -0,003 1,938

Alter Outdegree Advice¹ 0,210 ° 2,358 0,179 3,081


-0,196 ° 2,355 -0,176 3,823

Difference Between Alters Outdegree Advice¹ 0,091 1,724 0,238 6,889

Alter Outdegree Advice¹

-0,113 2,567 -0,241 4,011


-0,024 2,861 -0,063 5,568

Difference Between Alters Outdegree Friend¹ 0,035 2,962 0,031 7,552

Closed Advice triads¹ 0,074 1,847

Open Advice triads¹ -0,151 6,140

Closed Friend triads¹ -0,173 2,726

Open Friend triads¹ 0,100 2,685

R² = 0.704 and 0.726 (R² = 0.614 and 0.621 for model without and with outdegree)

Conclusions


40

Conclusion

6 approaches to the measurement of individual social capital

Most important findings:Being asked for advice positively related to performance, but

possibly selection-effect- Friendship (no direct effect)


41

Conclusion

Most important findings:In general: asking advice not related to performanceBUT…


42

- Choosing specific others important:– Advice relations with alters that are hierarchically

higher: (+)– Advice relations with alters similar in hierarchy: (+)

- Friendship with associate (+)

- Closed structures friendship (-)

Aantal beperkingen:Geen kennis over soort informatie en de bruikbaarheid

- Validation/confirmation/new information/…- Wat doen mensen met de info?

Conclusions


43

Limitations:No knowledge of type of advice

- Validation/confirmation/new information/…- Application of advice?

Causality (multicollinearity!)=> longitudinal

- Selection or influence?- Consequences of other relations?- Types of structures related (centrality, closure,

resourcefulness) => How? Causality?

Advice from outside?- Limiting of strong ties…

Conclusion

THE END


44

filip agneessens department of sociology, ghent university different theories and measures of social...

Documents

ego social capital

social support slide

importance of social

kind of capital

research methods festival

human capital model

performance slide

approaches theories