Granovetter, Mark, Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 91, No. 3, pp. 481-510, (1985).
In this article Granovetter (1985), argues that most behavior is intimately embedded in complexes of interpersonal interactions and that such a critic avoids the dissipations of under and over socialized theories of human action or behavior. Although it is a common believe for universal behavior, emphasis is placed on economic behavior for two particular reasons: it is a typical scenario of human behavior inadequately understood as those who investigate it professionally have a strong bias to atomized views of action; and with minimal exception, sociologists have desisted from critical study of any matter already asserted by neoclassical economist (Granovetter, p.483; 504).
In an attempt to illustrate that all economic process are acquiescent to sociological analysis and that such investigations reveal principle, not superficial, aspects of these processes. Attention is placed on two essential challenges of trust and malfeasance (Granovetter, p.487).To demonstrate how the embededness perception develops different understanding and projections from that instituted by economist, Oliver Williamson’s argument of markets and hierarchies is used (Granovetter, pp.493-495). Williamson’s ideology is in its self a revisionist approach within economics, deviating from the disregard of institutional and transactional contemplations typical to neoclassical work (Granovetter, p.505).
Small firm in a market environment may persist due to a complex network of social interactions overlying business interactions linking such firms and decreases pressures for integration. In avoiding the evaluation of phenomena at the core of standard economic theory, social investigators have conveniently disassociated themselves from huge and significant aspect of social life and since the European tradition, originating especially from Max Weber, where economic action is viewed only as a distinctive, if significant, and category of social action. This Weberian theory is consistent with and advanced by some of the acumens of modern structural sociology (Granovetter, p.507).
Burt, S., Ronald, The Contingent Value of Social Capital, Administrative Science Quarterly, Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University
Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 339-365, (1997).
In this article Burt (1997), generates an argument and provides material facts for a structural network of social capital that defines how the worth of social capital to a person is dependent on the number of individuals doing the same job. The data and control advantages of bridging the structural voids or extrications between non-redundant acquaintances in a network that comprises social capital are essentially valuable to managers with considerably less peers (Burt, p.339).
Social capital can be differentiated from its etiology and outcomes from human capital. Making reference to etiology, social capital relates to the quality established between individuals, whereas human capital refers to the quality of persons. In relation to consequences, social capital refers to the contextual supplement to human capital. Social capital envisages the returns to intelligence, seniority and education dictated in part by an individual’s location in the social organization of an economy or hierarchy (Burt, p.340).
A proportion of the worth of a manager to an organization is measured by his ability to coordinate other individuals; determining opportunities to improve value within an institution and identifying the right combination of individuals to develop prospects. Understanding how, when and who to coordinate is a preserve of the managerial system of contacts within and outside the organization. Specific network structures deemed social capital receive higher yields to their human capital due to strategic positioning to develop and determine more beneficial opportunities (Burt, pp.343-344). The number of peers and the worth of social capital are linked through competition and validity. Having a lot of peers influences the manager’s freedom to describe his or her obligations and the organizations response to the manager’s description (Burt, p.345).