Social Capital

The evaluation of human in the organization has been evolved from labor through human resources to human capital.  Since the human capital has been valued, the relationships of them have been studied 
by many people such as Rob Cross and Laurence Prusak, 
the authors of  "The People Who Make Organizations Go-or Stop" at Harvard Business Review in 2002.  Now, the networking among people is not just a relationship or a network, it is the social capital.

They distinguish types in social capital based on the role in the organization: central connectors, spotting boundary spanner, information broker, peripheral specialists.  In their review, they all value these four types of people high with mentioning possible problems.

Anyhow, how it works?
"Saguaro about Social Capital"  (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/saguaro/primer.htm) says that works in many ways: information flow, norma of reciprocity, collective actions, broader identity and solidarity.
Almost every action and every reaction of one entity is relevant to social capital.  

Then, among four types, who is the most wanted?
- central connectors links people inside the group, so organizations would need them
- boundary spanner connects other part of the organization, so orgs would  need them, too
- information broker communicate across the sub groups, so orgs want them as well
- also, peripheral specialists are specialized expertises, of course, orgs need them.
Then, all are needed for organizations. It differs from one's personality and specialization.


So far, it seems that many expertises tried so hard to find ways to make organization more efficient and effective.  They are even caring so much about informal network.  But all these studies took the management viewpoint from the organization.

Even informal network has been used by organization management.  And it seems that employers judge their ability or value through identifying each social capital and the role inside (they sometimes give intensives or higher salaries for some people because of their role in the org).  Therefore, we can't just neglect the role of informal network.

Then, what do we do for a successful social network??
From the member of the organization's point of view, how we could make OUR organization better?

In my opinion, it is all about leadership.  Leadership is not just for the leader.  The one's own way of working with pride in their work gives one leadership.  Sometimes leadership is followed by the pride and confidence.  Leadership is about being independence and communicating with people at the same time.  
There will be better answerS for this "what do we do for a successful social network?"


Although I also value the social network, today's  lives are so intense.  
We can't just let it go...