Introduction
In the modern world, public management largely relies on social sciences. The understanding of how human interactions occur and how they should be managed most effectively, i.e. to produce maximum value and generate minimum waste, is recognized as a crucial element of successful public administration. A particular approach that has received remarkable academic attention within recent decades is the network approach. Social networks involve interactions that had not been observed on the organizational or interpersonal levels, which is why the emergence of social networks attracted social scientists and led to the development of new sociological theories. In regarding the relationships among social entities, various issues associated with social processes, human behavioral patterns, and structural environments can be addressed (Wasserman & Faust, 1999). Apart from its theoretical value, the structural perspective of networks can be used to propose practical recommendations.
The issue of interest is how individual and organizational performance can be explained by social positions. The network approach is particularly relevant in this regard because it allows linking performance to social relations by addressing the diversity of roles an individual adopts in a network (as opposed to the organizational structural approach where an individual is seen to have certain functional roles) (Zagenczyk, Scott, Gibney, Murrell, & Thatcher, 2010) and, most importantly, by exploring the notion of social capital (Burt, 1997; Coleman, 1988; Varda, 2011). Upon reviewing relevant literature, the ways are explained in which social positions affect performance; moreover, the network perspective is shown to allow not only linking the two but also explaining different performance-related phenomena in the social context. Further, the findings are critically evaluated and analyzed to ensure that the conclusions are reliable. The issue of explaining performance by social positions is important for public administration because it reveals factors that have a remarkable impact on performance while having been widely overlooked by researchers and practitioners in the past.
Network Analysis
A large amount of academic effort has been dedicated to the exploration of the nature and roles of networks in the context of governance and administration. Within recent decades, one of the focuses of such studies was exploring how individual and organizational performances are connected to social positions. There is little doubt among researchers that the connection exists, but the point where the matter becomes debatable is whether individual and organizational performances can be regarded from the perspective of social positions or the perspective is insufficient for explaining the performance dynamics. Network analysis is the instrument for addressing this issue, and many studies have employed it.
First of all, it is necessary to examine what network analysis is. Despite the presence of a large body of academic literature on the network analysis approach, there is rather a variety of observations and a diversity of findings than a systematic understanding of the way networks affect social and institutional processes. Three main directions of networks studies—social network analysis, political science and policy change, and public management—have been developed separately, so their findings are obtained and analyzed in different contexts (Berry et al., 2004), which is why network studies are not an integrated discipline but a collection of different pieces of research. For example, Wasserman and Faust (1999) argue that the social network analysis approach should be used to explore the relationships among social entities. From this perspective, the social environment in a given case can be structured and subsequently explained through understanding and describing the connections among interacting elements.
However, exploring networks goes beyond exploring the interactions among organizations because capacities needed to operate in networks are different from those required on the organizational level (Agranoff & McGuire, 1998). Networks are bigger than organizations in every sense, and while it is recognized that the emergence and operation of networks can help resolve issues that cannot be resolved by organizations within themselves, it is also recognized that, once networks are in place, they create new difficulties mostly associated with the lack of understanding of how networks produce value (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001). Among these difficulties, there is the threat of groupthink within networks, a high level of dependence on leaders and such skills among members as cooperation and efficiency, and the costs of operation, including communication and meetings (Berry et al., 2004). Nevertheless, many organizations opt for employing networks, and Jones, Hesterly, and Borgatti (1997) identify four conditions that can drive organizations to do so: asset specificity, demand uncertainty, task complexity, and frequency of activities. When all four are present, the advantages of networking outweigh recognized disadvantages because networking provides safer and more efficient interactions compared to other forms of administration, such as hierarchies. According to Provan and Kenis (2007), network governance types include participant-governed networks (network members execute governance), organization-governed networks (vertical structures where higher corporate levels regulate lower ones), and network administrative organization (a separate body is created to execute governance, making networking centralized).
This network perspective is connected to the understanding of the relationship between social positions and performance through the recognition of networks as an environment where social roles are manifested differently compared to organizational or interpersonal environments. Lee, Yang, Tsai, and Lai (2014) propose a content-based behavioral analysis instead of a widely used structural analysis for characterizing interactions in a network. The approach allows understanding the complexity of how individuals perform. Instead of identifying a person with a certain position or a role imposed by an institutional structure to which a person belongs, it is suggested that persons may have different roles and perform under one of them in a given situation or under several roles simultaneously. This perspective significantly broadens the understanding of social positions in the context of performance. Strengthened by the techniques of organizational history development, inductive data structuring, and content analysis (Williams & Shepherd, 2015), the network approach allows linking social positions and relations to performance with more evidence.
Concerning social relations, Granovetter (1985) notes that the effort to understand and measure their effects on behavior and institutional processes is one of the main focuses of sociology. It is especially emphasized that this understanding will never be achieved if behaviors and institutions are regarded separately and independently, i.e. outside the context of their connections to one another and external processes. Social relations are ongoing, which is why the dynamics and the change should be studied with the primary focus, not the entities. It is not only important for social theory but practices as well, as it has been confirmed that organizations that recognize social relations as a factor of performance and implement networking accordingly have more chances to survive and succeed (Uzzi, 1996). One of the manifestations of social relations which are often overlooked by social scientists is the phenomenon of weak ties (Granovetter, 1973). The concept of weak ties recognizes that, apart from institutionalized, declared, recorded, manifested, or easily predictable interpersonal connections, some ties are likely to connect individuals despite the absence of obvious social factors. Based on weak ties, there are greater possibilities for some individuals to form sustainable structures and interact effectively within them. It is important to acknowledge weak ties because to examine the effects of social positions, social positions should be defined, and many researchers have argued that the definition should include such aspects as occasional interactions (which are part of weak ties) instead of focusing on structural connections solely. Also, the factor of homophily should not be disregarded (Monge & Contractor, 2003), and it should be taken into consideration that perceived similarity is a force that makes individuals forge ties within organizations and networks.
Social Capital
Based on integrating the knowledge about networks and ties, it can be concluded that they affect individual and organizational performance. The conclusion was experimentally confirmed by Cross and Cummings (2004) in their study of the relationship between performance in knowledge-intensive work and such social phenomena as networks and ties. Networking and performance were linked in a study conducted by Burt (1997). A particularly important element of the correlation addressed by the author is social capital, and it was concluded that the value of social capital depends on the number of people in a network, i.e. the number of people collaborating for the same work. To understand the notion of social capital, it can be put in simple terms that people invest in social relations and expect certain returns (Lin, 2001). In the modern world, social relations around building and managing social capital have been largely affected by the emergence of new media and electronic communications (Lin, 1999). There is a widely recognized lack of understanding of how social capitals work today, as the interactions among people have become more complex with the growing importance of exchange and feedback. Attempts to measure social capital have been criticized for the same reasons that Granovetter (1985) used to criticize measuring the effects of social relations on behaviors and institutions: the lack of continuity. Social capital is highly interconnected with social relations and networks, which is why its perceived and objective value is constantly changing.
Coleman (1988) described three forms of social capital: obligations and expectations, information channels, and social norms. All three describe social capital as a resource for action; more importantly, they show how social positions become incorporated into rational behaviors. From this perspective, the concept of social capital is especially relevant to identifying the connections between performance and social position. The latter influences the former because individuals tend to act based on their perception of norms and expectations. When working, people do not only meet requirements and achieve goals set for them but also manage their social capitals by interacting with other people (Provan & Milward, 1995), which is why their rational social relations considerations shape their performance along with organizational or networking guidelines. This is part of the network thinking systematized by Borgatti and Foster (2003), as they link social capital to performance through the concept of social access to resources.
Activities associated with building and managing social capital improve interactions and facilitate networking. This was confirmed by Varda (2011) in a study that examined state-society synergy and communities from the network perspective. The author concluded that organizational influence is not such a strong factor in the formation of social capital as trust, which determines how cohesive a community is and how well-connected the elements of it are. However, it is still important to acknowledge that social capitals within networks and outside of them behave differently (Putnam, 1993). With discriminatory norms, there are individuals whose freedoms are impaired by social capital, which emphasized the need for defining the communities’ boundaries and operation before addressing the issue of social capital’s effects.
Network analysis and the understanding of social positions’ connection to performance have practical applications that have been repeatedly stressed by researchers. For example, Schneider, Scholz, Lubell, Mindruta, and Edwardsen (2003) argue that public governance should rely more heavily on community-based solutions, which provide lower levels of coercion, and networking is one of such solutions. Among other advantages, networks shape environments where expert policy-making is more encouraged and facilitated and where stakeholders develop stronger ties, which increases the level of trust and improves cooperation. This perspective is supported by Shrestha and Feiock (2009), as they argue that cross-service networks on local levels ensure more credibility. However, it is also argued by some researchers that public administration based on networking can be a threat to democratic governance because public interest is being redefined in networking (O’Toole, 1997). Therefore, networking may be employed as an instrument, but it should not be disregarded that public administration is more than instruments and procedures: it also incorporates goals and values, which is why networking in public administration is beneficial only if administrators comply with democratic values.
In the context of performance, social aspects have been proved to constitute a considerable factor. Zagenczyk et al. (2010) argue that employees’ perception of their organizations is largely shaped by social influences and not only by the organizations’ efforts. Several types of influences can be divided into two major groups: direct (ties and connections with other people) and indirect (images of networks, including those that an employee is a part of and those that an employee observes externally). Along with the literature review above, this example stresses the importance of social position in management studies. An individual inevitably has many roles and failing to recognize him or her as a member of society with a background, connections, perceived social capital, and aspirations lead to designing ineffective public management policies. Regarding structural and functional roles without taking into consideration social positions are misleading because, as it has been shown, performance is largely connected to social relations. Therefore, explaining performance through social positions is a promising perspective because it allows comprehending and predicting interactions more profoundly.
Evaluation and Analysis
To support the assessment of the connection between performance and social position, it is necessary to address the reliability and accuracy of sources and the relevance of employed perspectives. All the sources used to explore the issue of interest (see Networks: A Structural Perspective) are academic, peer-reviewed texts. Some of them are systematic analyses, i.e. they examine the existing literature to organize available data into comprehensive and structured understandings, while others present findings of primary studies and experiments. Facts presented in the sources should not be doubted because the reputation of reliability earned by the academic journals where the articles were published guarantees that the facts had been verified. However, what is always an issue in dealing with facts in academic literature is not only the validity but also completeness. There is always a threat that presented data do not fully reflect an issue because some facts have not been mentioned. To reduce this risk, a rather large number of sources were used for addressing the issues of interest. It minimizes the chances of misinterpretation because many perspectives are explored instead of relying on just a few articles that can turn out to deliver a perspective that is too narrow.
Nonetheless, even with verified and diversified facts, there is a possibility that conclusions are incorrect or incomplete because, apart from facts, there is the authors’ interpretation in any study. To reduce this risk, it should be assessed whether the authors are critical or rather suggestive. In all the sources used to address the issue of the connection between performance and social position, critical approaches were detected. The subject of networking in public administration has been widely explored within recent decades, which is why dealing with it requires a high level of critical thinking (Lin, 2011). The logical consistency of arguments is achieved by appealing to the existing set of paradigms. The area of networking studies has generated a large body of terms and notions, and by addressing them based on previous studies, the authors of reviewed texts manage to deliver systematic views instead of plain findings.
In the area of academic literature, everyone is an author and a critic at the same time. This is the very essence of the peer-reviewed publication practice. To ensure the reliability of materials, researchers examine each other’s works. To be a critic of academic literature means to be a researcher who knows how scientific knowledge is generated. At the same time, to be a researcher means to be a critic, i.e. being able to assess whether findings are obtained correctly and whether they support the proposed argument. Monge and Contractor (2003) stress that networking is a very challenging thing to study because it presents human interactions, i.e. one of the main focuses of social sciences, in a concentrated way, and it requires a researcher to be highly critical of the observed phenomena. Even experts in the area state that definitive conclusions on networking should not be easily made because there is still a lack of understanding of the way networks work, and even the causality remains vague, e.g. whether organizational policy instruments lead to the emergence of networks or networks emerge for different reasons and affect policies (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001). The need for further research was stressed in every reviewed source.
Conclusion
It has been shown that individual and organizational performance can be explained by social positions. The approach that allows understanding this connection is the network perspective, as it manages to address interactions among social entities comprehensively and profoundly. The other possible approach is organizational but is has been shown how this approach fails to recognize such factors as the diversity of roles an individual adopts and the efforts associated with building and managing social capital. For public administration, the network perspective is confirmed to provide data, instruments, and context for managing interactions more effectively because it allows understanding how social relations are interconnected, how their continuity can be taken into consideration, and how individuals perform based on social positions.
References
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (1998). Multinetwork management: Collaboration and the hollow state in local economic policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(1), 67-91.
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295-326.
Berry, F., Brower, R., Goa, W., Jang, H., Kwon, M., & Word, J. (2004). Three traditions of network research: What the public management research agenda can learn from other research communities. Public Administration Review, 64(5), 539-552.
Borgatti, S., & Foster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013.
Burt, R. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339-365.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 95-120.
Cross, R., & Cummings, J. (2004). Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 928-937.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
Jones, C., Hesterly, S., & Borgatti, S. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911-945.
Lee, A. J., Yang, F. C., Tsai, H. C., & Lai, Y. Y. (2014). Discovering content-based behavioral roles in social networks. Decision Support Systems, 59(1), 250-261.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
O’Toole, L. J. (1997). The implications for democracy in a networked bureaucratic world. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(3), 443-459.
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2007). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(1), 229-252.
Provan, K.G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1-33.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community. The American Prospect, 4(13), 1-11.
Schneider, M., Scholz, J., Lubell, M., Mindruta, D., & Edwardsen, M. (2003). Building consensual institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 143-158.
Shrestha, M. K., & Feiock, R. C. (2009). Governing US metropolitan areas: Self-organizing and multiplex service networks. American Politics Research, 37(5), 801-823.
Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674-698.
Varda, D. M. (2011). A network perspective on state-society synergy to increase community-level social capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 896-923.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, T. A., & Shepherd, D. A. (2015). Mixed method social network analysis combining inductive concept development, content analysis, and secondary data for quantitative analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 268-298.
Zagenczyk, T. J., Scott, K. D., Gibney, R., Murrell, A. J., & Thatcher, J. B. (2010). Social influence and perceived organizational support: A social networks analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(1), 127-138.