Ronald S. Burt

Structural Holes and Good Ideas

This article outlines the mechanism by which brokerage provides social capital. Opinion and behavior are more homogeneous within than between groups, so people connected across groups are more familiar with alternative ways of thinking and behaving. Brokerage across the structural holes between groups provides a vision of options otherwise unseen, which is the mechanism by which brokerage becomes social capital. I review evidence consistent with the hypothesis, then look at the networks around managers in a large American electronics company. The organization is rife with structural holes, and brokerage has its expected correlates. Compensation, positive performance evaluations, promotions, and good ideas are disproportionately in the hands of people whose networks span structural holes. The between‐group brokers are more likely to express ideas, less likely to have ideas dismissed, and more likely to have ideas evaluated as valuable. I close with implications for creativity and structural change.

The Network Structure Of Social Capital

ABSTRACT This is a review of argument and evidence on the connection between social networks and social capital. My summary points are three: (1) Research and theory will better cumulate across studies if we focus on the network mechanisms responsible for social capital effects rather than trying to integrate across metaphors of social capital loosely tied to distant empirical indicators. (2) There is an impressive diversity of empirical evidence showing that social capital is more a function of brokerage across structural holes than closure within a network, but there are contingency factors. (3) The two leading network mechanisms can be brought together in a productive way within a more general model of social capital. Structural holes are the source of value added, but network closure can be essential to realizing the value buried in the holes.

Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence

Two classes of network models are used to reanalyze a sociological classic often cited as evidence of social contagion in the diffusion of technological innovation: Medical Innovation. Debate between the cohesion and structural equivalence models poses the following question for study: Did the physicians resolve the uncertainty of adopting the new drug through conversations with colleagues (cohesion) or through their perception of the action proper for an occupant of their position in the social structure of colleagues (structural equivalence)? The alternative models are defined, compared, and tested. Four conclusions are drawn: (a) Contagion was not the dominant factor driving tetracyclenes diffusion. Where there is evidence of contagion, there is evidence of personal preferences at work.

Network items and the general social survey

Abstract This is an argument for obtaining network data in the General Social Survey (GSS). The proposal requires a discussion of how and why at least minimal network data ought to be obtained in a probability sample survey of attitudes and behaviors. I begin with general concerns; briefly describing the proposal, available experience with the proposed items in large probability samples, how the proposed items are different from existing GSS items, kinds of variables that the proposed items would generate, and kinds of research questions that could be addressed if the proposed items were included in the GSS. I then address comparatively focused questions likely to arise in deliberations over the proposal; explaining how much interview time the proposed items are expected to require, why one rather than multiple name generators are proposed, why recording five alters is proposed, why intimacy is proposed as the name generator criterion content, why a short form is proposed for obtaining formal data, how priorities among name interpreter attribute items were established, how the proposed items elicit data on the strength and content of relationships, and how the proposed data might be coded for easy access by GSS users.

THE GENDER OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

Legitimacy affects returns to social capital. I begin with the network structure of social capital, explaining the information and control benefits of structural holes. The holes in a network are enterpreneurial opportunities to add value, and persons rich in such opportunities are expected to be more successful than their peers. Accumulating empirical research supports the prediction. However, women here pose a puzzle. The entrepreneurial networks linked to early promotion for senior men do not work for women. Solving the gender puzzle is an occasion to see how network models of social capital can be used to identify people not accepted as legitimate members of a population, and to describe how such people get access to social capital by borrowing the network of a strategic partner.

Applied Network Analysis: A Methodological Introduction.

Applied Network Analysis is a reference book on the methodology of network analysis -- the study of the structure of relations between people, groups or formal organizations. Illustrations from real research show the problems that arise in network analysis -- and how to resolve or avoid them. Primarily written by Burt and Minor, the book has the cohesion of a text while still using work from other leading network analysts.

A note on social capital and network content

Abstract As a guide to selecting name generators for social capital research, I use network data on a probability sample of heterogeneous senior managers to describe how they sort relations into kinds, and how the kinds vary in contributing to social capital. Managers sort relations on two dimensions of strength - intimacy (especially close versus distant) versus activity (frequent contact with new acquaintances versus rare contact with old friends) - and with respect to two contents - personal discussion (confiding and socializing relations) versus corporate authority (the formal authority of the boss and informal authority of essential buy-in). Comparing name generators for their construct validity as indicators of social capital, I compute network constraint from different kinds of relations, and correlate constraint with early promotion. The correlation is strong for the network of personal relations, zero for the network of authority relations, and strongest for personal and authority relations together. I close with research design recommendations for selecting name generators.

Kinds of Third-Party Effects on Trust

The simplest social context for trust is an isolated dyad—two people away from others. The more usual context is two people surrounded by various close friends, foes, and acquaintances. We argue that third-party gossip amplifies both the positive and the negative in a relationship, making ego and alter more certain of their trust (or distrust) in one another. We draw three broad conclusions from an analysis of network data on a probability sample of diverse senior managers: (a) Trust is associated with relation strength, as expected in private games; (b) as predicted by the gossip argument for public games, trust is significantly amplified by third parties (third parties have a positive effect on trust within strong relations, and a negative effect on trust within weak relations); and (c) different forms of indirect connection are responsible for the third-party effects on trust.

The Social Capital of Opinion Leaders

Opinion leaders are more precisely opinion brokers who carry information across the social boundaries between groups. They are not people at the top of things so much as people at the edge of things, not leaders within groups so much as brokers between groups. The familiar two-step flow of communication is a compound of two very different network mechanisms: contagion by cohesion through opinion leaders gets information into a group, and contagion by equivalence generates adoptions within the group. Opinion leaders as brokers bear a striking resemblance to network entrepreneurs in social capital research. The complementary content of diffusion and social capital research makes the analogy productive. Diffusion research describes how opinion leaders play their role of brokering information between groups, and social capital research describes the benefits that accrue to brokers.

Personality correlates of structural holes

Abstract We use survey network and personality profile data to explore the idea that personality varies systematically with structural holes. We draw two conclusions from the analysis: (1) Personality does vary with structural holes. The association is concentrated in a few items, but those few personality items describe three-fourths of the variance in network constraint. (2) The association is consistent with the structural hole argument. People in the least constrained networks claim the personality of an entrepreneurial outsider (versus conforming and obedient insider), in search of authority (versus security), thriving on advocacy and change (versus stability). We summarize with a network entrepreneur personality index that defines a surprisingly accurate probability of the respondent having an entrepreneurial network. We conclude with cautionary evidence from a survey of corporate staff in a large financial organization. Where the personality index is associated with entrepreneurial networks (lower ranks), neither the index nor the networks are associated with manager performance. Where manager performance is significantly linked with entrepreneurial networks (more senior ranks), the personality index is not associated with network structure, and performance is not higher for managers with more entrepreneurial personalities. The personality data are an interesting correlate, but no substitute for sociometric data.