SOC 8311 Basic Social Statistics

1
INTRAORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS TEAMS
OCCUPATIONS
Analysts of intraorganizational and occupational
networks examine how interpersonal social
relations affect status attainment dynamics,
careers, and workplace outcomes

• Which positions in socioeconomic stratification
  systems give job-seekers access to information
  about better employment opportunities?
• Interaction with human capital experience
• Relative advantages of weak strong ties

• Paradoxes of how mentoring, networking, workplace
  friendships shape the development of personal
  careers, work team social cohesion, and
  organizational productivity performance
• Better to rely on mentor or disperse ties?
• Are work friends assets and liabilities?
• Teams boost productivity and tyrannize?

2
Its Not What You Know, But
Sociological status attainment models assume that
individual workers who possess human capital
skills are competing for jobs in a single labor
market. Achieved status (education), not family
background, is main factor affecting occupational
income.
Social resources theory explains how people use
their education, initial positions, and personal
networks to tap into social capital embedded in
egos alters. Principal H0 Social resources
exert an important and significant effect on
attained statuses, beyond that accounted for by
personal resources. (Lin 1999)

• Two processes that connect networks to status
  attainment
• Access to social capital via ego-centric nets
• Mobilization of contacts resources in job
  searches

3
Resource Dependence Centrality
Power within and between organizations originates
in economic and social exchanges, under uncertain
conditions, as actors try to acquire vital
resources while avoiding dependence on others who
control the supply those resources (Pfeffer
Salancik 1978)
Central positions in intraorganizational networks
are key to acquiring power to manage ones
resource dependencies.
Network centrality increases an actors
knowledge of a systems power distribution, or
the accuracy of his or her assessment of the
political landscape. Those who understand how a
system really works can get things done or
exercise power within that system
(Herminia Ibarra 1993494).
Organizational power accrues to actors and
subunits better able to cope with other actors
uncertainties, who lack substitutable
alternatives. Croziers (1964) famous example of
French tobacco factory maintenance workers who
destroyed repair manuals.
4
Varieties Of Network Centrality
Persons groups occupy different types of
central positions in intraorgl communication and
exchange networks, with varied implications for
the types of power resources they can wield.
Central location reflects egos high demand from
others (high prestige as a target of popular
choices) greater reach (access to information,
economic political resources). Formal orgl
structure affects which type of centrality is
most useful for playing the game.
Bureaucratic hierarchies are asymmetric
power/authority networks (Webers legitimate
power) based on command-obey and report-to
vertical relations of superiors and subordinates.
Betweenness centrality (brokering structural
holes) is useful strategy for person seeking to
be a Machiavellian player Workteams are
egalitarian networks based on advice trust ties
that build coworker cohesion/solidarity and boost
team performance. As in dancing and horseshoes,
closeness counts!
5
Teams Worker Autonomy or Tyranny?
Self-managing teams take joint responsibility for
job tasks, thus erase mind/hand separation of
Marxian worker alienation
Networks of interdependence among the team
members allegedly foster more empowerment,
participation in creative problem-solving, higher
commitment and morale result is greater
production efficiency higher corporate
profits But, are teams merely a management tool
for indirect control, worker coercion
cost-cutting?
Because team members strongly identify with
co-workers and internalize the teams
self-enforcing work norms, everyone is locked
inside an iron cage of peer-pressured authority
and discipline (concertive control). James
Barkers (1993, 1999) ethnography of ISE
Communications restructured teams showed how
members self-monitored their performances
punished violators of team norms e.g., peer
pressures to change persistent tardiness.
6
GETTING BY with a LITTLE HELP from FRIENDS?

• Paradox that friendship can be both asset and
  liability
• Commercial bankers relied on trusted strong-tie
  colleagues for advice and support when trying to
  close uncertain deals with corporate customers.
  However, they were more likely to close
  successful deals by relying on their relatively
  sparser, nonhierarchical approval networks
  (Mizruchi Stearns 2001).

• Low perceived conflict related to out-group
  friendships, but negative relations overwhelm the
  positive effects from having friends in other
  departments (Labianca et al. 1998).
• Friends who verbalize high job dissatisfaction
  can drag down employee morale. McDonalds workers
  grew happier after their disgruntled buddies quit
  (Krackhardt Porter 1985).

7
Ties That Torture
Occupancy of central positions in multiplex
workplace networks advice/help, authority,
communication, conflict, enmity, friendship,
trust may help to explain individual, group,
and organizational outcomes such as performance,
productivity, employee morale
David Krackhardt analyzed networks of advice and
friendship among 36 Silicon Systems employees. He
identified roles and role constraints based on
ordinary dyadic ties, especially Simmelian ties
to multiple cliques (see next slide Figures ).
After Krackhardt collected the network data, a
subsequent union drive flip-flopped from pro to
anti. He located this change of heart in
friendship cross-pressures on Chris. Unable to
satisfy the norms of two opposing cliques, Chris
abandoned the union organizing campaign to
supporters with fewer persuasive ties.
8
The Bow Tie Burt and Krackhardt propose
different theories about how ties among the
alters put structural constraints on ego. What
does SH theory assume about the norms
(preferences) held by the egos alters? What
assumption does Simmelian Tie theory make about
those norms?
9
(I Cant Get No) Satisfaction
Simmelian tie dyad of strongly reciprocally
tied pair with identical ties to one or more
third actors (i.e., a clique)

• When two or more cliques share a node, the common
  actor may be required to satisfy two sets of
  divergent norms. Conflicting normative
  expectations can generate stressful
  cross-pressures
• Husbands wives keep their friendship circles
  separate because the two groups have differing
  interests and values
• Adolescents dress and behave one way when at
  home, and completely different when involved in
  peer group activities
• Did you ever withdraw from a group because ?

Next figure, a blockmodel-MDS reanalysis of
social distances across both Silicon Systems
networks, is consistent with Krackhardts story
about the co-clique cleavages among
pro/anti-union employees.
10
Fig 6.6. Social Distances in Advice and
Friendship Networks of Silicon Systems (based on
Krackhardt 1999) SOURCE Knoke Changing
Organizations (2001227)
11
References
Barker, James R. 1993. Tightening the Iron Cage
Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly
38408-37.   Barker, James R. 1999. The
Discipline of Teamwork Participation and
Concertive Control. Thousand Oaks, CA
Sage. Crozier, Michel. 1964. The Bureaucratic
Phenomenon. Chicago University of Chicago
Press. Ibarra, Herminia. 1993. Network
Centrality, Power and Innovation Involvement
Determinants of Technical and Administrative
Roles. Academy of Management Journal
36471-501. Krackhardt, David. 1999. Ties That
Torture Simmelian Tie Analysis in
Organizations. Research in the Sociology of
Organizations 16183-210. Krackhardt, David and
Lyman W. Porter. 1985. When Friends Leave A
Structural Analysis of the Relationship Between
Turnover and Stayers Attitudes. Administrative
Science Quarterly 30242-261. Labianca, Giuseppe,
Daniel J. Brass, and Barbara Gray. 1998. Social
Networks and Perceptions of Intergroup Conflict
The Role of Negative Relationships and Third
Parties. Academy of Management Journal
4155-67. Lin, Nan. 1999. Social Networks and
Status Attainment. Annual Review of Sociology
25467-487. Mizruchi, Mark S. and Linda Brewster
Stearns. 2001. Getting Deals Done The Use of
Social Networks in Bank Decision-Making.
American Sociological Review 66647-671.