The role of information and influence in social networks: examining the association between social network structure and job mobility

SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF MARK GRANOVETTER'S ARTICLE "The potency of Weak Ties" (1973) and his volume Getting a Job (1974), researchers have examined the part social networks play in the piece of work mobility process. Granovetter's finding that a majority of his respondent base jobs through "informal" means of that kind as friends or relatives l him to theorize the importance of "weak ties" in finding a better piece of work He argued that weak ties are important in piece of work mobility because they serve as "bridges" between networks, allowing individuals to conjoin to others who are not already in their network. from one side these connections, individuals are able to find without about jobs that they may not have heard about end "formal" means and through their powerful ties.

While Granovetter emphasizes by what means weak ties can lead to fresh information about better jobs, Nan Lin argues that weak ties are important because they can conjoin job seekers to influential others who have resources (1982 1990) The finding that the occupational status of a contact is associated with the occupational status of the piece of work a person ends up taking is viewed by means of Lin and others as indicating that highly prestigious contacts help nation get more prestigious job (Lin, Ensel and Vaughn 1981; Lin, Vaughn, and Ensel 1981; Flap and De Graaf 1986; De Graaf and Flap 1988; Marsden and Hurlbert 1988; Wegener 1991) Weak ties, therefore, facilitate piece of work mobility by connecting individuals to others, who, because of their resources, can be more influential in helping race get a job (Lin 1982 1990)

although both Granovetter and Lin argue that weak ties are important because of by what mode they connect people to "unlike" others, their research and a great quantity [i]or[/i] amount of subsequent research (Marsden and Hurlbert 1988; Lin, Ensel and Vaughn 1981; Lin, Vaughn, and Ensel 1981; Flap and DeGraaf 1986; De Graaf and Flap 1988; Wegener 1991) doesn't directly examine a person's network mode of building but instead focuses on the might of dyadic ties. But with the work of Ronald Burt (1992) and others (eg Bian 1997; Podolny and Baron 1997) a more direct ordeal of the importance of social networks for piece of work mobility was developed using network analysis meanss to measure the presence of "relationships of nonredundancy between sum of two units contacts" (Burt 1992: 18) or what Burt calls structural apertures A contact is considered to be nonredundant if he or she shares no other ties with other contacts in a person's immediate social network. The tie between a individual and a nonredundant contact spans the structural aperture that would otherwise be near between the two networks. According to Burt spanning structural apertures through nonredundant contacts can be real advantageous (Burt 1992).

While Burt (1992) and others (Podolny and Baron 1997) have shown that the nearness of nonredundant contacts who fill structural perforations within a person's social network facilitates piece of work mobility, there continues to be a profitable deal of debate about in what manner nonredundant contacts affect job mobility. This article examines the character that two mechanisms could play in mediating the relationship between structural apertures and job mobility: information and influence. In the nearest section we discuss how network ties can associate people to diverse others who have either information or influence, and in what manner both information and influence can help clan get better jobs.

I

Information and Influence

NONREDUNDANT TIES ARE HYPOTHESIZED TO combine PEOPLE with diverse others (Burt 1992) If clan have only redundant connections within their network, then the information they receive from individual network member is likely to be no different from the information that they receive from another network member. In contrast, nonredundant ties bridge tribe into other networks that include ones who have alternative sources of information. This should give tribe who have more nonredundant ties in their networks access to more unique pieces of information than those clan who do not have nonredundant ties (Granovetter 1973 1974; Burt 1992)

on the other hand why should those with more information be more likely to leave their piece of work for a better job? The basic idea is that for a given horizontal of resources (i.e., education, experience, skill level) there exists a place of "better" jobs. However, because of limited piece of work information, employees usually do not know about all of these piece of works So to the extent that a someone can learn about more of these piece of works he or she is more likely to find those piece of works that are so much better that he or she is willing to change. Therefore, we await that the positive relationship between the number of nonredundant contacts and upward piece of work mobility will be mediated by the agency of the amount of job information a somebody has about other job openings.

Information plays an important character not only for employees, on the other hand also for employers. Employers gather information directly from candidates about prior accomplishments and their skills end resumes and interviews. But they can also gather information indirectly by the agency of using informants from within their social networks (Montgomery 1991 1992 1994) of that kind informants provide information to employer concerning the abilities of potential employee information that is frequently hard to obtain through other channels. Employer informants are also able to assess the information an employer has received directly from a piece of work candidate, thus reducing the risk employer face of hiring a "lemon" (Montgomery 1991 1992) by dint of reducing the risk, informants increase the probability that an employer will proffer a job to a piece of work candidate. Thus, job seekers who are associateed to such informants should be more likely to receive piece of work offers (Montgomery 1991, 1992; Fernandez and Weinberg 1997)