A Social Capital Theory of Career Success

A Social Capital Theory of Career Success
Author(s): Scott E. Seibert, Maria L. Kraimer and Robert C. Liden

Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 219-237
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069452 .
Accessed: 08/10/2013 16:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 152.78.130.202 on Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:34:29 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
c
Academy of Management Journal
2001, Vol. 44, No. 2, 219-237.
A SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY OF CAREER SUCCESS
SCOTT E. SEIBERT
MARIA L. KRAIMER
Cleveland State
University
ROBERT C. LIDEN
University
of Illinois at
Chicago
A model
integrating competing
theories of social
capital
with research on career
success was
developed
and tested in a
sample
of 448
employees
with various
occupa-
tions and
organizations.
Social
capital
was
conceptualized
in terms of network struc-
ture and social resources. Results of structural
equation modeling
showed that net-
work structure was related to social resources and that the effects of social resources
on career success were
fully
mediated
by
three network benefits: access to
information,
access to
resources,
and career
sponsorship.
Organizational
researchers have
begun
to de-
velop increasingly comprehensive
models of career
success
using demographic,
human
capital,
work-
family,
motivational,
organizational,
and
industry
variables
(e.g.,
Dreher &
Ash, 1990;
Judge
&
Bretz,
1994;
Judge,
Cable, Boudreau,
&
Bretz, 1995;
Kirch-
meyer,
1998). Although
this work has
provided
considerable evidence
regarding
the determinants
of career outcomes, the roles of informal
interper-
sonal behaviors have not been
fully explored (Judge
&
Bretz, 1994; Pfeffer, 1989).
Popular
advice for
getting
ahead in one's career
rarely
fails to mention
the
importance
of
networking
for the achievement
of career
goals (e.g.,
Bolles, 1992; Kanter, 1977).
Indeed, Luthans,
Hodgetts,
and Rosenkrantz
(1988)
found that the most successful
managers
in their
study spent
70
percent
more time
engaged
in net-
working
activities and 10
percent
more time en-
gaged
in routine communication activities than
their less successful
counterparts.
Recent advances
in social
capital theory (Coleman, 1990)
have
begun
to
provide
a
finer-grained analysis
of the
ways
in-
dividuals' social networks affect their careers in
organizations
(Burt, 1992, 1997; Ibarra, 1995;
Podolny
&
Baron, 1997;
Sparrowe
&
Popielarz,
1995).
This theoretical
perspective
has the
poten-
Data were collected and the
manuscript
was submitted
and
processed
while Scott E. Seibert was in the
Manage-
ment
Department
at the
University
of Notre Dame and
Maria L. Kraimer was a
graduate
student at the Univer-
sity
of Illinois at
Chicago. Support
for this
project
was
provided by
the
Management Department
at the Univer-
sity
of Notre Dame and the Alumni Office of the Univer-
sity
of Notre Dame. The current
investigation
is
part
of a
larger study
of career success.
tial to
considerably
enhance scholars'
knowledge
of
the role of social
processes
in career success.
The first
purpose
of the current
study
was to
integrate
the current
conceptualizations
of social
capital
as
they pertain
to career success. Three dif-
ferent theoretical
approaches-weak
tie
theory
(Granovetter, 1973),
structural hole
theory
(Burt,
1992),
and social resource
theory (Lin, 1990)-
focus on different network
properties
as
represen-
tations of social
capital.
However,
in all these the-
ories,
the
key explanatory
variables for the effect of
social
capital
on career
mobility
are
greater
access
to
information, resources, and
sponsorship.
To
date,
these
explanatory
variables have not been in-
cluded in
empirical
tests. The main contribution of
the current
investigation
to the social network lit-
erature on careers is to
provide
a
conceptual
inte-
gration
of the three
major
social
capital
theories
followed
by
an
empirical
test that includes the
pro-
posed explanatory
mechanisms.
A second
purpose
of this
study
was to model
social
capital
effects on a full set of career out-
comes,
with other
processes
known to be determi-
nants of career success controlled. Social network
approaches
to career
success,
growing
out of a so-
ciological
research
tradition,
tend to focus on occu-
pational
status or
job mobility
as the
primary
career
outcome
(e.g.,
Burt, 1992, 1997; Granovetter, 1973;
Ibarra, 1995; Lin, Ensel,
&
Vaughn,
1981a;
Spar-
rowe &
Popielarz, 1995).
These studies have often
been limited to
single organizations
and small sam-
ples,
have had few control
variables, or have as-
sessed outcomes over short time
spans.
Research in
the
organizational
literature, on the other
hand,
tends to have
large
and diverse
samples
and models
with broad sets of career
processes.
A model of
career success that does not account for determi-
219
nants other than social
capital may provide
a bi-
ased estimate of the effect of the latter on careers.
The
organizational
research has also moved to-
ward the use of a set of extrinsic and intrinsic
outcomes as measures of career success
(e.g., Judge
& Bretz, 1994;
Judge
et
al., 1995;
Kirchmeyer,
1998;
Seibert, Grant,
&
Kraimer, 1999;
Turban &
Dough-
erty,
1994;
Wayne,
Liden, Kraimer,
&
Graf, 1999).
Extrinsic career outcomes are
objectively
observ-
able achievements such as
salary
and
promotions,
and intrinsic career outcomes refer to individuals'
subjective feelings
of
accomplishment
and satisfac-
tion with their careers
(London
&
Stumpf,
1982).
Career scholars have
argued
that these are related
but distinct constructs
(Aryee, Chay,
&
Tan, 1994;
Hall, 1976;
Wayne
et
al., 1999)
and that both mea-
sures are
important
because
together they
reflect
not
only
conventional standards of
success,
but
also
feelings
of success relative to an individual's
own
goals
and
expectations (Judge
&
Bretz, 1994;
Judge
et
al., 1995;
London &
Stumpf,
1982;
Seibert
et al., 1999). By linking
the social
capital
literature
with this career success literature,
we
hoped
to
provide
a
rigorous
demonstration of the role of
social
capital
in career success.
The third
purpose
of this
study
was to
integrate
research on social network structure with that on
mentoring
and careers.
Mentoring
has been defined
as a
developmental relationship
in which a less
experienced organization
member receives
help
and
guidance
from a more
experienced
member
whose intent is to
improve
the career
opportunities
and
growth
of the
junior person
(Kram, 1985).
Re-
search has
explored
the
origin
and
progress
of men-
toring relationships
and the
types
of activities tak-
ing place
within the
mentor-prot6ge relationship
(e.g.,
Chao, Walz,
& Gardner, 1992; Noe, 1988;
Tur-
ban &
Dougherty,
1994).
The literature has also
emphasized
the
important
effect that
having
a men-
tor
may
have on a
protege's
career success
(e.g.,
Dreher & Ash, 1990).
Kram
(1985) suggested
that it
is
important
to understand the full constellation of
developmental relationships
in which a
protege
can be involved. However,
little research has ex-
plored
(1)
the simultaneous
impact
of
multiple
de-
velopmental
contacts, (2)
the
way
in which the
organizational
location of these
developmental
contacts affects their contribution to career success,
or
(3)
how the structure of an
employee's
social
network facilitates access to
developmental
rela-
tionships
in different
parts
of an
organization.
In
this
study,
we used social
capital
theories to extend
the
mentoring
literature
by specifying
the
types
of
network structures that are
likely
to
provide
the
most career benefits. At the same time,
the social
capital
literature is enhanced
through
its link with
the extensive literature on
developmental
relation-
ships
and the benefits
they bring
to careers.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Theories of Social
Capital
Coleman
(1990)
defined social
capital
as
any
as-
pect
of social structure that creates value and facil-
itates the actions of the individuals within that
social structure. Just as the creation of
physical
capital
involves
changes
in materials so as to facil-
itate
production,
and human
capital
involves
changes
in an individual's skills and
capabilities,
social
capital
is created when the relations
among
people change
in
ways
that facilitate instrumental
action
(Coleman, 1990).
Social network researchers have taken the lead in
formalizing
and
empirically testing
theories related
to the
concept
of social
capital.
Social network
researchers
regard relationships,
or
ties,
as the ba-
sic data for
analysis.
A network can be defined as
the
pattern
of ties
linking
a defined set of
persons
or
social actors. Each
person
can be described in terms
of his or her links with other
people
in the network.
The focal
person
in such an
analysis
(who
is usu-
ally
the
person supplying
the
data)
is referred to as
"ego,"
and those he or she is tied to are "alters"
(Knoke
&
Kuklinski, 1982).
The first
approach
to the
conceptualization
of
social
capital,
weak tie
theory
(Granovetter, 1973),
focuses on the
strength
of the social tie used
by
a
person
in the
process
of
finding
a
job.
Granovetter
argued
that ties
among
members of a social
clique
are
likely
to be
strong
(defined
as
emotionally
in-
tense,
frequent,
and
involving multiple types
of
relationships,
such as those with friends, advisors,
and
coworkers).
The information
possessed by any
one member of the
clique
is
likely
to be either
shared
quickly
or
already
redundant with the in-
formation
possessed by
the other members. How-
ever,
ties that reach outside of one's social
clique
are
likely
to be weak
(that is,
not
emotionally
in-
tense,
infrequent,
and restricted to one narrow
type
of
relationship)
rather than
strong. According
to
Granovetter
(1973),
weak ties are often a
bridge
between
densely
interconnected social
cliques
and
thus
provide
a source of
unique
information and
resources. Indeed,
Granovetter
(1973)
found that
weak ties were more
likely
than
strong
ties to have
been the source of information about
job openings
for the
sample
of
job
incumbents he interviewed.
Subsequent
research has
provided
mixed
support
for the weak tie
hypothesis (Bridges
& Villemez,
1986; McPherson,
Popielarz,
& Drobnic, 1992;
Mur-
ray, Rankin,
&
Magill, 1981).
April 220
Seibert, Kraimer, and Liden
Burt's
(1992)
structural holes
approach
to social
capital
focuses not on the characteristics of
ego's
direct
ties,
but on the
pattern
of relations
among
the
alters in
ego's
social network. A structural hole is
said to exist between two alters who are not con-
nected to each other.
According
to structural holes
theory,
it is
advantageous
for
ego
to be connected to
many
alters who are themselves unconnected to the
other alters in
ego's
network.
According
to Burt's
theory (1992, 1997),
networks rich in structural
holes
provide
an individual with three
primary
benefits: more
unique
and
timely
access to infor-
mation,
greater bargaining power
and thus control
over resources and
outcomes,
and
greater visibility
and career
opportunities throughout
the social
sys-
tem. Burt
(1992)
critiqued
weak tie
theory, pointing
out that the structural hole
concept gets
at the
bridging property
of ties more
directly
than the
weak tie
concept
and therefore
provides
a
"stronger
foundation for
theory
and a clearer
guide
for em-
pirical
research"
(1992: 28).
Initial
empirical
evi-
dence has been
supportive
of structural holes the-
ory
but has also
provided
a number of
boundary
conditions
limiting
the
range
of the
theory's appli-
cation
(Burt, 1992, 1997;
Podolny
&
Baron, 1997;
Sparrowe
&
Popielarz, 1995).
To
date,
the role of
the
proposed explanatory processes-access
to in-
formation,
bargaining
control, and referral-have
not been
empirically
examined.
The third
major
theoretical
approach
to the
conceptualization
of social
capital
is social re-
sources
theory (e.g.,
Lin, Ensel,
&
Vaughn,
1981a,
1981b).
Social resources
theory
focuses on the
nature of the resources embedded within a net-
work. Lin and coauthors
(1981a)
argued
that it is
not the weakness of a tie
per
se that
conveys
advantage (nor,
by extension,
is it the
bridging
property
of weak
ties),
but the fact that such ties
are more
likely
to reach someone with the
type
of
resource
required
for
ego
to fulfill his or her
instrumental
objectives.
An alter who
possesses
characteristics or controls resources useful for
the attainment of the
ego's goals
can be consid-
ered a social resource. For
example,
alters who
provide
career
development
advice and
support
are the relevant social resource when
considering
an
ego's pursuit
of instrumental career
goals.
Lin's research showed that tie
strength
was
neg-
atively
related to the
occupational prestige
of the
alter contacted
(that is,
weak ties reach
higher-
status
alters)
and that the alter's
occupational
prestige
was in turn
positively
related to the
pres-
tige
of the
job
secured
by ego (Lin
et
al., 1981a,
1981b;
see also De Graaf &
Flap,
1988; Marsden &
Hurlbert, 1988).
Integration
of Social
Capital
Theories
As the literature review above
reveals, contro-
versy
exists
regarding
the
proper conceptualization
of social
capital.
Weak tie
theory
focuses on the
nature of
ties; structural holes
theory
focuses on the
pattern
of the ties
among
alters;
and social resource
theory
focuses on the characteristics of the alters
contacted. The two later theories are each claimed
to
supersede
the earlier
theory (e.g.,
Burt, 1992; Lin
et
al., 1981a),
and
competitive
model
testing
has
been
performed
in an effort to
empirically
deter-
mine the best
conceptualization (Sparrowe
&
Pop-
ielarz, 1995).
Despite
this
controversy,
a fruitful
integration
of
the
differing conceptualizations
of social
capital
is
possible.
The
key
to this
integration
is to
recognize
an
analytical
distinction between the structural
properties
of networks and the nature of the social
resources embedded in networks and to thus draw
a distinction between their form and their content
(see Lin, 1999).
Weak tie
theory
and structural hole
theory
each focuses on the structure of a network.
Social resources
theory
focuses on the content of a
network. These theories are not
mutually
exclu-
sive, as
competitive
model
testing implies,
but can
function
together
because
they
focus on different
points
in the
process
of
accumulating
social
capi-
tal.
According
to our
conceptual integration,
the
overarching
social
capital
construct is best
thought
of as both the different network structures that fa-
cilitate
(or
impede)
access to social resources and
the nature of the social resources embedded in the
network. The
key empirical question
then
becomes,
"What network structures lead
ego
to have more
(or
less)
access to
important
social resources?"
A MODEL FOR A SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY
OF CAREER SUCCESS
Figure
1
presents
the model of social
capital
and
career success tested in the current
study.
Accord-
ing
to the
model, two measures of social network
structure, weak ties and structural
holes,
are related
to two forms of social
resources, the number of
contacts in other functions and the number of con-
tacts at
higher organizational
levels. Social re-
sources effects on career success are in turn medi-
ated
by
three
types
of network benefits: access to
information, access to
resources,
and career
spon-
sorship.
Career success is assessed in terms of cur-
rent
salary,
the number of
promotions
received
over the entire
career, and career satisfaction. A full
set of variables drawn from the
organizational
lit-
erature were used as controls in model tests but are
not shown in
Figure
1.
2001
221
FIGURE 1
Hypothesized
Model of Social
Capital
Effects on Career Successa
Network Structure Social Resources Network Benefits Career Success
a
Control variables and their
paths
are not shown for the sake of
clarity.
Current
salary
was a
logarithm.
We examined the network of career
develop-
mental
relationships
maintained
by ego
within
his or her
organization
in order to
capture
the
social resources relevant for the instrumental ob-
jective
of career success.
Maintaining
consis-
tency
with
previous
research on social networks
and
promotions
(Burt, 1992, 1997;
Podolny
&
Baron, 1997),
we focused on
intraorganizational
ties because contacts within an
employee's
own
organization
were the ones we
expected
would
provide
the kinds of benefits discussed in social
capital
theories
(information, resources,
and
sponsorship)
and would thus influence her or his
success within the
organization.
We
conceptual-
ized social resources as
developmental
contacts
in other functions and at
levels because,
within formal
organizations,
functional or technical
specialty
and hierarchical
level are
likely
to
impose
salient social bound-
aries between
organization
members
(Burt, 1992;
Ibarra, 1993).
These
organizational identity
groups
are
likely
to form their own interaction
cliques
based on shared interests, values,
train-
ing,
socialization,
or worldviews (Ibarra, 1995;
Kanter, 1977;
Lincoln & Miller, 1979). Develop-
mental contacts who are members of social iden-
tity groups
other than
ego's
are
likely
to
provide
unique
information, resources,
and influence
useful to
ego.
Social Network Structure and Social Resources
The fundamental tenet of weak tie
theory
is that
a weak tie is valuable because it is more
likely
than
a
strong
tie to act as a
bridge
between social
cliques,
providing
an
organization
member with contact
with
people
of different social
groups
or statuses
(Granovetter, 1973, 1982).
An
assumption
of social
network
approaches
to social
capital theory
is that
a
person
has a finite amount of time and
energy
to
invest in social
relationships.
Given that,
by
defi-
nition,
strong
ties
require
a
greater
investment of
time and
energy,
the individual must make a stra-
tegic
decision to invest his or her social
energy
in
either
maintaining
a
relatively
small number of
strong
ties or in
developing
a
relatively large
num-
ber of weak ties
(Podolny
&
Baron, 1997).
Our ar-
gument
is not that a weak tie to a
given
individual
is better than a
strong
tie to the same
person.
Rather,
we seek to relate the number of weak ties,
a
structural
property
of an
ego's
network,
to the num-
ber of valuable social contacts in
ego's
network. A
social network characterized
by many
weak ties is
more
likely
to
provide
access to critical social re-
sources. That
is,
people
who choose to invest their
social
energy
in
developing large
numbers of weak
ties will have
greater
access to social
groups
other
than their own.
Although
some
empirical
evidence
has
suggested
that
bridging
is more
likely
with
weak ties than with
strong
ties
(Friedkin, 1980),
surprisingly
little
empirical
research has
specifi-
April
222
cally
examined the extent to which weak ties
bridge relatively
unconnected social
groups. Hy-
potheses
la and lb state
that,
within a career de-
velopment
network,
the number of weak ties will
be related to the number of contacts in other social
identity groups
defined
by
the formal
properties
of
an
organization:
Hypothesis
la. The number
of
weak ties in a
network will be
positively
related to the num-
ber
of ego's
contacts in other
organizational
functions.
Hypothesis
lb. The number
of
weak ties in a
network will be
positively
related to the num-
ber
of ego's
contacts at
levels.
A structural hole is said to ,exist between two
alters when
they
are unconnected to each other
(Burt, 1992).
An
ego
who is connected to two alters
who are not connected to each other
is,
by
defini-
tion,
a
bridge
between those alters.
According
to
Burt
(1992),
this structural
position conveys
certain
advantages
to
ego,
in that he or she
may
be able to
trade information
gathered
from one alter to the
other.
Ego provides
added value to the
organization
through
his or her
ability
to
provide
information
and coordinate activities
among separated
alters
(Burt, 1997; Galbraith, 1977). Further,
to the extent
that the two alters
possess
similar
resources,
ego
can
play
them off
against
each
other,
seeking
to set
up
social
(or material)
exchanges
with the alter who
offers the best return.
According
to structural hole
theory,
an alter who
is
already
connected to other alters within
ego's
network is "redundant"
(Burt, 1992)
and does not
convey
the kinds of benefits to
ego
that a nonre-
dundant alter would. Parallel to our
argument
re-
garding
weak ties is the
argument
that
ego
must
make the
strategic
choice either to invest in main-
taining
a
relationship
with a redundant alter or to
invest in
developing
a
relationship
with an alter
who is not redundant with other alters in his or her
network. The addition of a nonredundant alter in-
troduces another set of structural holes into
ego's
network. Because members of the same social
clique
or social
identity group
are
likely
to be
strongly
connected to each other
(e.g., Festinger,
Schacter,
&
Back, 1950; Homans, 1950;
Popielarz,
1994),
structural holes are
likely
to be found be-
tween alters who are members of different social
groups,
such as those defined
by
functional and
hierarchical boundaries within
organizations (Burt,
1992; Ibarra, 1993).
The fact that
ego
is
acting
as a
bridge
between two unconnected social
groups
am-
plifies
the benefits derived from acting as a
bridge
between two unconnected individuals. Alters who
are members of unconnected social
groups
are
therefore
uniquely
beneficial to an
ego.
An
ego
whose network is rich in structural holes is there-
fore
likely
to have
greater
access to social resources
as defined here-contacts in other functions and at
levels.
Hypotheses
2a and 2b
allow tests of this
proposition:
Hypothesis
2a. The extent
of
structural holes in
a network will be
positively
related to
ego's
number
of
contacts in other
organizational
functions.
Hypothesis
2b. The extent
of
structural holes in
a network will be
positively
related to
ego's
number
of
contacts at
levels.
Social Resources and Network Benefits
The notion that social resources embedded in
networks will
provide
benefits to actors is central
to all three network
approaches
to social
capital.
In
general,
these benefits include
greater
and more
timely
access to
information,
greater
access to fi-
nancial or material
resources,
and
greater visibility,
legitimacy,
or
sponsorship
within a social
system.
However,
previous
researchers have not
incorpo-
rated these constructs in their models. The overall
purpose
of the
remaining
set of
hypotheses
was to
allow us to demonstrate that the effects of social
capital
on career success are
through
the three ex-
planatory
mechanisms.
The notion that different functional units within
an
organization
have
differing perspectives,
con-
trasting
worldviews,
and
unique
information is ax-
iomatic to the
information-processing perspective
on
organizations (e.g.,
Galbraith, 1977;
March &
Simon, 1958).
The literatures on matrix or lateral
organizational designs (Davis
&
Lawrence, 1977;
Galbraith, 1994)
and
overlapping
or cross-func-
tional teams
(Clark
&
Fujimoto, 1991)
also contain
the
assumption
that different functional
groups
need to share information across functional bound-
aries because the
groups
hold different information
and views. This work
suggests
that an
employee's
contact with members of other
organizational
func-
tions will
provide
access to information not avail-
able within his or her own functional
group.
Al-
though
other functions
may
also
possess unique
resources,
these resources are less
likely
than is
information to be available for transfer and of use
across functional boundaries.
And, unless
they
are
at
higher organizational levels,
developmental
con-
tacts in other functions are not
likely
to have the
2001 223
Academy of Management
Journal
status and influence to
provide sponsorship
to an
employee's
career.
Accordingly,
Hypothesis
3. The number
of
contacts in other
functions
in a network will be
positively
re-
lated to
ego's
access to
organizational informa-
tion.
We
expect
that contacts at
higher
levels of the
organization
will also be beneficial to an individual
in a number of
ways.
A fundamental
principle
of
rational
organization design
is that
higher-level po-
sitions
convey
more
authority
than lower-level
po-
sitions
(March
&
Simon, 1958; Massie, 1965;
We-
ber, 1946). Ideally, higher positions
also
convey
a
broader
perspective
on issues relevant to an
orga-
nization and
greater
access to information
upon
which incumbents can base decisions
(Galbraith,
1977;
March &
Simon, 1958). According
to the clas-
sical
principles
of formal
organizations,
those in
positions
at
higher
levels also have
greater
formal
decision-making authority
over the allocation of
resources than do those in lower-level
positions.
This
legitimate
basis of social
power
(French
&
Raven, 1968)
means that
higher-level
individuals
have
greater
formal
power,
influence,
and control
over resources.
They may
also be members of dom-
inant coalitions within the
organization
and there-
fore
enjoy
informal bases of
power,
influence,
and
control over resources as well
(Thompson,
1967).
Positive relations with
developmental
contacts at
higher
levels should therefore
provide
an actor
with
greater
access to these benefits.
Hypothesis
4a. The number
of
an individual's
contacts at
levels will be
positively
related to access to
organizational
information.
Hypothesis
4b. The number
of
an individual's
contacts at
levels will be
positively
related to access to resources.
We
expect
contacts at
lev-
els to also be related to the third network benefit,
career
sponsorship.
Social network theorists have
variously
referred to
visibility, legitimacy,
social
credentialing,
and inclusion in career
opportuni-
ties
(Burt, 1992; Lin, 1999)
as a benefit of
specific
network structures and social resources. Social net-
work researchers have, however,
overlooked the
conceptual overlap
of this construct with the no-
tion of career
sponsorship developed
in the litera-
ture on
mentoring
and careers
(Kram, 1985; Noe,
1988).
Career
sponsorship,
one of the
primary
func-
tions fulfilled
by
a mentor
(Kram, 1985; Noe, 1988),
involves
providing
a
protege
with favorable and
timely exposure, opportunities to
engage
in chal-
lenging assignments,
and career advice and coach-
ing.
Because mentors are found
among
individuals
at
levels
(Kram, 1985),
we
expect
relations with
developmental
contacts at
levels to be related to receiv-
ing
career
sponsorship.
Hypothesis
4c. The number
of
an individual's
contacts at
levels will be
positively
related to career
sponsorship.
Network Benefits and Career Success
There are two reasons to
expect
access to infor-
mation and access to resources to each be related to
objective
career success. First,
greater
access to in-
formation and resources should enhance individ-
ual work
performance.
Information and resources
have been noted as contextual factors that
empower
employees, leading
to
higher
levels of motivation
and
performance (e.g.,
Hackman &
Oldham, 1980;
Spreitzer,
1996).
Burt
(1992, 1997) argued
that in-
dividuals able to use their network
positions
to fill
a broker or
boundary spanner
role within an
organ-
ization add
greater
value to the
organization.
In
fact,
centrality
in the advice network has been
linked to
job performance (Sparrowe,
Liden,
Wayne,
&
Kraimer, 2001).
The
information-processing ap-
proach
to
organizational design
also
emphasizes
the value added to
organizations by
individuals
who
play key boundary-spanning,
liaison,
conflict
resolution,
and coordination roles
(e.g.,
Galbraith,
1977). Improved
work
performance
and
adding
value should enhance an individual's
objective
ca-
reer outcomes
(Burt, 1992, 1997;
London &
Stumpf,
1983;
Medoff & Abraham, 1981). Second,
informa-
tion and resources are fundamental bases of social
power
(French
&
Raven, 1968).
Greater access to
information and resources will increase an individ-
ual's
organizational reputation
(Kilduff
& Krack-
hardt, 1994; Tsui, 1984),
and the individual will
be
perceived
as more
powerful
or influential in
the
organization
(Brass, 1984;
Brass & Burkhardt,
1993).
These
perceptions
should make the individ-
ual better able to secure valuable
organizational
rewards
independent
of her or his actual
perfor-
mance
(Ferris
&
Judge,
1991;
Luthans et al., 1988).
We also
expect
access to information and access
to resources to be
positively
related to career satis-
faction.
Having
access to relevant
organizational
information and to resources such as funds,
mate-
rials,
and
space
should increase
feelings
both of
control and
competence
at work
(Gist
& Mitchell,
1992)
and of
psychological empowerment (Spre-
itzer, 1996). Psychological empowerment
in
gen-
eral and self-determination and
competence
in
par-
April
224
ticular are extensions of
job design theory
(Kraimer,
Seibert,
&
Liden, 1999;
Spreitzer,
1995, 1996),
ac-
cording
to which enriched
jobs
are more
satisfying
to individuals
(Hackman
&
Oldham, 1980;
Spre-
itzer, 1996). Thus,
those who feel
greater psycho-
logical empowerment
with
respect
to their careers
should be more satisfied with their career
progress.
Theory supports
the existence of a
relationship
be-
tween access to information and career satisfaction
and between access to resources and career satis-
faction,
but we are not aware of
empirical
research
directly testing
these
propositions.
The above discussion leads to the
following hy-
potheses regarding
access to information:
Hypothesis
5a. An
employee's
access to
infor-
mation will be
positively
related to current sal-
ary, independent of
other career outcomes.
Hypothesis
5b. An
employee's
access to
infor-
mation will be
positively
related to the number
of promotions
received over his or her
career,
independent of
Hypothesis
5c. An
employee's
access to
infor-
mation will be
positively
related to his or her
level
of
career
satisfaction, independent of
Our discussion also leads to these
hypotheses
regarding
access to resources:
Hypothesis
6a. An
employee's
access to re-
sources will be
positively
related to current
salary, independent of
Hypothesis
6b. An
employee's
access to re-
sources will be
positively
related to the number
of promotions
received over her or his
career,
independent of
Hypothesis
6c. An
employee's
access to re-
sources will be
positively
related to her or his
level
of
career
Although
the
relationships
between access to in-
formation and career success and between access to
resources and career success are
thought
to work
through
similar
processes (work
performance,
power, reputation,
and
empowerment),
these are
considered to be
independent
constructs
having
unique
effects on outcomes
(Spreitzer, 1996).
How-
ever,
it is also
likely
that access to information has
a direct influence on access to resources. Informa-
tion is a basis for social
power
(French
&
Raven,
1968),
and access to and control over information
can be translated into
power
and influence in
organ-
izations
(Hickson,
Hinings,
Lee, Schneck,
& Pen-
nings, 1971; Pfeffer, Salancik, & Leblibici, 1978).
Possessing
relevant
organizational
information
would
give
individuals the
ability
to
develop
means of
acquiring necessary
resources other than
going through
formal channels. In
essence,
infor-
mation
expands
one's
options
for
acquiring
re-
sources.
Hypothesis
7. An
employee's
access to
infor-
mation will be
positively
related to his or her
access to resources.
The
positive
effects of
mentoring
in
general
and
career
sponsorship
in
particular
on career out-
comes have been
amply
demonstrated in the ca-
reers literature
(Chao, 1997;
Chao et al., 1992;
Dreher &
Ash, 1990;
Wayne
et
al., 1999;
Whitely,
Dougherty,
&
Dreher, 1991).
For
example,
Dreher
and Ash
(1990)
found
that,
after
they
controlled for
several
demographic,
human
capital,
and
organiza-
tional variables, individuals who
reported
more ex-
tensive
mentoring
received more
promotions,
had
higher
incomes,
and were more satisfied with their
total
compensation.
Chao and
colleagues (1992)
performed
a canonical correlation
analysis
and
found career
mentoring
to be most
strongly
associ-
ated with
employees'
intrinsic
job
satisfaction. Ac-
cordingly,
the
following hypotheses
were formu-
lated to allow
replication
of
previous
research on
career
mentoring
within an
integrated
model of
social
capital
and career success:
Hypothesis
8a. The level
of
an
employee's
ca-
reer
sponsorship
will be
positively
related to
current
salary, independent of
other career
outcomes.
Hypothesis
8b. The level
of
an
employee's
ca-
reer
sponsorship
will be
positively
related to
the number
of promotions
received over her or
his entire
career,
independent of
other career
outcomes.
Hypothesis
8c. The level
of
an
employee's
ca-
reer
sponsorship
will be
positively
related to
her or his career
Control Variables
Organizational
researchers have tested
relatively
comprehensive
models of career success. Some
specific findings
are that human
capital
variables
(education, years
in the
workforce,
experience
in
multiple organizations,
and career
interruptions),
demographic
variables
(gender,
marital
status,
and
spouse's employment status),
and
organizational
characteristics
(organization
size,
metropolitan
lo-
cation, and
industry sector) have effects on
salary,
225 2001
promotions,
and/or career satisfaction
(Judge
&
Bretz, 1994;
Judge
et
al., 1995;
Kirchmeyer,
1998;
Seibert et
al., 1999;
Wayne
et
al., 1999).
In
addition,
career satisfaction and
salary
have been found to
vary by occupation. Specific
theoretical links be-
tween each
category
of variables and the career
outcomes discussed above were
beyond
the
scope
of this
study (see
Judge
et
al., 1995)
but these vari-
ables were included as controls.
METHODS
Sample
and Procedures
A diverse
sample
of
2,781
randomly
selected un-
dergraduate
business,
master of business adminis-
tration
(M.B.A.),
and
engineering
school alumni of
a
large, private,
midwestern
university
received
surveys
at their home addresses. The
alumni, who
had
graduated
from 3 to 30
years prior
to the date of
the
study,
were instructed to
complete
the
survey
and return it
directly
to the first author in a
postage-
paid envelope. Confidentiality
of
survey responses
was ensured to all alumni. To
encourage responses,
we entered all alumni
respondents
into a
drawing
for three
prizes
of
approximately
$50 in value. A
reminder
postcard
was mailed three weeks after the
initial
mailing.
A total of 773
surveys
were returned
(a
28
per-
cent
response rate). Respondents
who were not cur-
rently working
(n
=
73), working only part-time
(n
=
42),
or
self-employed
(n
=
116)
were elimi-
nated from the
analyses
because their career out-
comes would not be
comparable
to those of alumni
with current full-time
employment.
After cases
with
missing
data had been eliminated,
the final
sample
consisted of 448 alumni. T-tests revealed
that
respondents
and
nonrespondents
did not
sig-
nificantly
differ with
respect
to
gender,
race,
or
major (business
versus
engineering).
However,
the
percentage
of
responses
from M.B.A.
graduates
(13%)
was lower than the
percentage they repre-
sented in the
target sample (25%).
The
demographic
breakdown of the
respondents
was as follows: Their
average age
was 35.6
years;
the
average
time since their
graduation
from the
university
was 13.0
years;
65
percent
were
male;
72
percent
were
married;
and 96
percent
were Cauca-
sian.
Forty-three percent
had a bachelor's
degree
as
their
highest degree
attained, 9
percent
had a mas-
ter's
degree
other than an M.B.A.,
41
percent
had an
M.B.A.,
5
percent
had a law
degree,
and 2
percent
had a Ph.D.
Average
tenure in their current
organi-
zation was 6.16
years.
Measures
Social
capital.
Respondents
were asked to list
(by
initials)
"the
people
who have acted to
help your
career
by speaking
on
your
behalf,
providing you
with
information, career
opportunities,
advice or
psy-
chological support
or with whom
you
have
regularly
spoken regarding
difficulties at
work,
alternative
job
opportunities,
or
long-term
career
goals."
We chose
this
description
of a network relation on the basis of
theoretical
considerations, as it
directly
addresses the
social resources mobilized in
pursuit
of instrumental
career
goals.
Network size was the total number of
alters indicated
by
a
respondent.
For alters who were
past
or current members of a
respondent's organization,
the
respondent
also
indicated the alter's
organizational
function re-
lative to him or herself
("same
function" or "different
function")
and
organizational
level
("lower," "same,"
or
"higher").
Contacts in other
functions
is the num-
ber of individuals who were identified as members of
a different function. The number of individuals who
were identified as
higher
in
organizational
level
formed the contacts at
higher
levels variable. Addi-
tionally,
we asked
respondents
to indicate how close
they
felt to the alter and how close the alters were to
each other on a scale where 2 was
"especially
close,"
1 was "less
close,"
and 0 was "distant." Weak ties was
the sum of all ties between the
respondent
and his/
her alters coded as 0 or 1.
Following
Burt
(1992,
1997),
we calculated structural holes,
using
the
ego
network
data,
as 1 minus the calculated value of the
constraint
posed by
an individual alter
j:
cij
=
(Pij
+
piqpqj)2,
for
q
+ i,
j,
where
Pi
is the
proportion
of i's
relations invested in contact
j, Piq
is the
proportion
of
i's relations invested in
q,
and
pq
is the
proportion
of
q's
relations invested in
j.
The total in
parentheses
is
the
proportion
of i's relations that are
directly
or in-
directly
invested in the connection with contact
j.
The sum of
squared proportions,
cij,
is the constraint
posed by
the entire network. One minus constraint
(1
-
cij)
is thus the lack of
constraint,
or the
degree
of
structural holes
present
in the
ego
network.
Network research
typically
relies on
single-item
sociometric
questions,
which
by
themselves do not
provide
information
regarding
measurement reli-
ability.
To ensure
reliability,
we
pretested
the sur-
vey
instrument and allowed
respondents
to list a
large enough
number of individuals to
generate
an
accurate
representation
of their networks
(Mars-
den, 1990;
Rogers
& Kincaid, 1981).
Sociometric
questions
were also
designed
to be as
specific
as
possible,
to enhance
accuracy
of recall.
Finally,
questions
were focused on
typical, long-term
rela-
tionships
rather than on brief, transient,
or
episodic
interactions. Research has shown that
people's
re-
April
226
call of
brief,
episodic
interactions is
highly
inaccu-
rate
(Bernard, Killworth, Kronenfeld,
&
Sailer,
1984)
but that
people
are
remarkably
accurate in
recalling typical
interactions and
long-term
rela-
tionships
(Freeman, Romney,
& Freeman, 1987)
like the
developmental relationships analyzed
in
the current
study.
Access to
information
and resources. The ac-
cess variables were measured
using Spreitzer's
(1996)
six-item scale. Three items were
designed
to
measure access to information,
and three were de-
signed
to measure access to resources
(1
=
"strong-
ly disagree"
to 7 =
"strongly agree").
An
explor-
atory
factor
analysis specifying
a varimax rotation
indicated that five of the six items formed two clear
factors
representing
access to resources
(a
=
.89)
and access to information
(a
=
.87).
One item in-
tended to measure access to
information,
"I have
access to the
strategic
information I need to do
my
job
well,"
cross-loaded and was therefore elimi-
nated from further
analyses.
Career
sponsorship.
The
eight
career
sponsor-
ship
items from Dreher and Ash's
(1990) global
mentoring
scale were summed to form a
composite
(a
=
.90).
This scale assesses the extent to which
senior
colleagues
have
provided sponsorship,
ex-
posure
and
visibility, challenging assignments,
and
protection. Responses
were made with a
five-point
scale
(1
=
"very
little" to 5 = "a
great
deal").
An
example
item
is,
"Gone out of his/her
way
to
pro-
mote
your
career interests."
Career success. Career success was measured in
terms of
promotions, salary,
and career satisfaction.
Respondents reported
the number of
promotions
they
had received over their entire careers. Promo-
tions were defined as
"any
increases in level and/or
any significant
increases in
job responsibilities
or
job scope." They
also indicated their current an-
nual salaries
(including
bonuses and other direct
income).
Self-reports
of income have been shown
to correlate
highly
with archival
company
records
(Judge
et
al., 1995;
Turban &
Dougherty, 1994).
Because a Z-test on the skewness statistic indicated
a nonnormal distribution for
salary (Z
=
36.5,
p
<
.001),
we followed Gerhart and Milkovich's
(1989)
recommendation and used a natural
logarithmic
transformation of
salary
for all
analyses.
Career sat-
isfaction was measured
using
Greenhaus,
Parasura-
man,
and
Wormley's (1990)
five items
(1
=
"very
dissatisfied" to 5 =
"very satisfied"),
which were
summed to form a
composite
(a
=
.83).
An
example
item is, "The
progress
I have made toward
meeting
my goals
for advancement."
Control variables. These variables were
gender
(0
=
"male,"
1 =
"female");
marital status
(0
=
"not
married," 1 =
"married"); spouse employment
sta-
tus
(0
=
"spouse
not
employed,"
1 =
"spouse
em-
ployed"); having
an M.B.A.
degree
(1
=
"yes"),
having
had an
employment gap
and,
if
so,
the num-
ber of weeks it
lasted;
residence in a
major
metro-
politan city,
defined as one with a
population
over
1 million
(1
=
"yes");
the number of
organizations
worked for over the career; and
having
an
occupa-
tion
categorized
as
general management (1
=
"yes").1
The number of
employees
in a
respon-
dent's firm was scaled from
1,
"less than 50 em-
ployees,"
to
5,
"more than
1,000
employees."
Num-
ber of
years
in the workforce was measured
by
subtracting
the
year
of
graduation
from the
year
the
study
was conducted. We also used network size as
a control variable in order to examine the
unique
effects of
developmental
contacts in other func-
tions and at
higher
levels as distinct from the sheer
number of
developmental
contacts.
Analyses
The
hypothesized
structural
equations
model
was tested
using
LISREL 8
(Joreskog
&
S6rbom,
1993),
with the covariance matrix as
input.
Because
no conventional estimate of error was available for
the
single-item
measures,
we assumed no error in
the measurement model for the four social
capital
variables,
the
single-item
control
variables,
and the
two
single-item dependent
variables. The
assump-
tion of no error
provided
a conservative test of the
1
As
previous
research has shown differences in re-
ported salary, promotions,
and/or career satisfaction that
are based on different
occupations
and
industries, we
asked
respondents
to indicate which of 11
categories
best described their
occupations
and which of 12
catego-
ries best described their industries. We
dummy-coded
each of those variables so that
manufacturing
was the
comparison category
for all industries and
accounting
was the
comparison category
for all
occupations.
Rather
than include
every dummy-coded
variable in the
hypoth-
esized model, we ran multivariate
analyses
of variance
(MANOVAs) using
career satisfaction,
promotions,
and
salary
as the
dependent
variables and
industry type
and
occupation type
as the
independent
variables. We then
included
only
the
statistically significant industry
and
occupation types
in the LISREL
analysis.
The results of
the MANOVA revealed that the
only statistically signif-
icant
occupation category
was
general management.
Thus, the
dummy
code for
general management
is in-
cluded in the
hypothesized
model as a control variable.
Although
two
industry categories (nonprofit
and
finance)
were
significant
in the
MANOVA,
their
paths
were not
statistically significant
in the initial LISREL
analysis
of
the
hypothesized
model; thus, we deleted them from the
hypothesized
model before
making
further model com-
parisons.
2001 227
Journal
model. In order to increase
sample
size relative to
the
parameter
estimates,
we used
single-scale
score
indicators to measure the other latent constructs in
the structural model. For access to
information,
access to
resources,
career
sponsorship,
and career
satisfaction,
the measurement
path
estimates were
set
equal
to 1 in order to scale the latent variables
(Bollen, 1989),
and the error variance was set
equal
to the scale variance times 1 minus the
reliability
in
order to account for measurement error
(Hayduk,
1987).
We also allowed the error terms for the three
endogenous
latent constructs for
salary, promo-
tions,
and career satisfaction to be correlated in
order to account for the correlations
among
these
three constructs.
In
testing
the theoretical framework,
we fitted sev-
eral nested models to the
data,
each
incorporating
different
assumptions
about the model
parameters.
Comparisons
with reasonable alternative models are
recommended as a means of
showing
that a
hypoth-
esized model is the best
representation
of the data
and are considered to be an
important part
of assess-
ing
model fit
(Bollen, 1989;
Kelloway,
1998).
The first
alternative model
specifies only
the direct
paths
from
the control variables to the career outcome variables.
This
control-variables-only
model
provided
a base-
line fit for an assessment of the incremental contribu-
tion of the additional
paths
in the theoretical model.
The
relationships
tested in the
model were based on
prior
research
findings.
The
hypothesized
model
specifies
both the control vari-
able
paths
and the set of
paths hypothesized
in this
study.
With the
remaining
alternative models,
we com-
pared
the
fully
mediated
hypothesized
model with
the
partially
mediated and nonmediated models,
as
recommended
by Kelloway
(1998).
We examined
three
partially
mediated models that assessed both
the direct and indirect effects between our sets of
constructs. The
partially
mediated models are tests
of whether
hypothesized
mediated effects are better
represented
as direct and indirect effects. We also
examined two nonmediated models in order to as-
sess whether the effects of social
capital
on career
success were
only
direct,
with no indirect effects
through
the network benefits. All of these alterna-
tive models included the control variable
paths.
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
To assess the
degree
to which common method
bias
might present
a
problem,
we
subjected
all the
scale items for the variables used in this
study
to
a
principal components analysis using varimax
rotation
(Harman, 1967).
From this
analysis,
six
clear factors
representing
the
expected
constructs
emerged:
career
sponsorship,
career satisfaction,
access to
resources,
social
capital, objective
career
success,
and access to information. The
average
item
loading
on the intended construct was .75
and,
of the 120
potential cross-loadings, only
3
were above
.30, with the
largest equal
to .40. The
absence of
cross-loadings among
the items for so-
cial
capital,
network
benefits,
and career success
provides
confidence that common method bias was
not a
problem
for this
study. Additionally,
the fact
that the access to
resources,
access to information,
and career
sponsorship
items loaded on three
sep-
arate factors
provides
evidence of discriminant va-
lidity among
our network benefits constructs.
Hypothesized
Model
Table 1
reports
the
means, standard deviations,
and
correlations
among
the
study
variables. Our
hypoth-
esized model fit the data well
(X
=
191.11,
df
=
88,
p
<
.01;
root mean
square
error of
approximation
[RMSEA]
=
.05;
adjusted goodness-of-fit
index
[AGFI]
=
.90;
normed fit index
[NFI]
=
.91;
compar-
ative fit index
[CFI]
=
.95). Utilizing
the
change
in
chi-square
test
(Bentler
& Bonett, 1980),
we
compared
our
hypothesized
model with a number of nested
models
(Table 2).
The first
comparison
showed that
the
hypothesized
model
provided
a
significantly
bet-
ter fit than did the
model
(AX2
=
498.83,
Adf
=
18,
p
<
.01).
The second com-
parison
was between the
hypothesized
model and the
first
partially
mediated model
(partially
mediated
model
1).
Partially
mediated model 1
specified
the
paths
in the
hypothesized
model as well as the direct
paths
from the network structure constructs (weak
ties and structural
holes)
to the network benefits
(ac-
cess variables and
sponsorship).
The
change
in chi-
square
test showed that this alternative model was
significantly
better than the
hypothesized
model
(AX2
=
25.82,
Adf
=
6,
p
<
.01).
Partially
mediated model 1 was therefore re-
tained as the
best-fitting
model and was then com-
pared
with the second
partially
mediated model
(partially
mediated model
2)
and the third
partially
mediated model
(partially
mediated model
3).
Par-
tially
mediated model 2
specifies
the same
paths
as
partially
mediated model 1 and also the direct
paths
from the social resources constructs
(contacts
across functions and at
higher levels)
to career out-
comes.
Partially
mediated model 3 includes all di-
rect
paths
from network structure to network ben-
efits,
from network structure to career outcomes,
and from social resources to career outcomes,
in
addition to the
hypothesized
mediated effects. The
228
April
TABLE 1
Means,
Standard Deviations,
and Correlationsa
Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1. Contacts in other 0.99 1.33
functions
2. Contacts at
higher
2.83 1.70 .27**
levels
3. Access to information 5.40 1.39 .16** .11*
4. Access to resources 4.88 1.33 .03 .09 .49**
5. Career
sponsorship
2.91 0.86 .03 .13** .25** .24**
6.
Salaryb
4.31 0.54 .09 .10* .21** .18** .16**
7. Promotions 4.76 2.88 .18** .14** .20** .13** .18** .49**
8. Career satisfaction 3.74 0.71 .08 .12** .35** .38** .38** .32** .23**
9. Weak ties 1.92 1.52 .17** .54** -.03 .01 -.12* .05 .06 -.05
10. Structural holes 0.35 0.25 .14** .45** .05 .05 .04 .02 .10* .08 .31**
11. Network size 5.32 1.99 .25** .48** .07 -.02 .05 -.10* -.01 .11* .37** .42**
12. Years since
graduation
13.02 7.07 .09* .02 .04 -.02 -.03 .47** .41** -.03 .09 .07 -.16**
13. Female 0.35 0.48 -.06 .05 -.01 -.02 .07 -.22** -.16** .13** .02 .05 .02 -.30**
14. Married 0.72 0.45 .06 .01 .08 .04 .01 .31** .28** .05 .06 -.05 -.08 .33** -.20**
15.
Spouse employment
0.49 0.50 -.02 -.05 -.01 -.02 -.01 -.02 .03 .06 .01 -.03 -.08 .04 .14** .61**
16. M.B.A. 0.41 0.49 .13** .04 .11* .01 -.05 .25** .19** -.01 .02 .00 -.07 .03 -.11* .06 -.03
17.
Employment gap
in 16.83 48.13 .04 -.06 .03 -.04 -.03 -.14** -.10* -.02 -.04 -.00 -.08 .14** .09* -.09 -.01 .08
weeks
18. Number of
employees
4.16 1.28 -.07 .03 .11* .06 -.02 .19** .04 .13** -.02 .07 -.03 -.03 .09 .01 .00 .14** -.09
19.
Metropolitan
area 0.69 0.46 -.11* .03 -.04 -.04 .01 .15** -.01 .02 -.02 -.00 -.02 -.04 .02 -.07 -.04 .01 -.04 .16**
20. Number of
employers
3.18 2.13 .12* -.01 -.06 -.09 -.11* -.00 .19** -.09 .01 .10* -.01 .26** -.09* .04 -.00 .10* .29** -.23** -.06
21. General
management
0.14 0.35 .13** .05 .11* .13** .14** .30** .26** .16** .02 .03 .01 .20** -.12** .04 -.09 .03 .03 -.01 -.11* .03
an
=
448.
b
Natural
logarithm.
*
p
< .05
**p
< .01
Journal
TABLE 2
Nested Model
Comparisons
Model
2
(df) AX2 (Adjf
RMSEA AGFI CFI NFI Model
Comparisons
Hypothesized
191.11** ( 88)
.05 .90 .95 .91
Control variables
only
689.94** (106) -498.83**
(18)
.11 .74 .69 .67 Control variables
compared
to
hypothesized
model
Partially
mediated 1 165.29**
( 82) 25.82** ( 6)
.05 .91 .96 .92
Partially
mediated model 1
compared
to
hypothesized
model
Partially
mediated 2 158.41** ( 76) 6.88 (
6) .05 .90 .96 .92
Partially
mediated model 2
compared
to
partially
mediated model 1
Partially
mediated 3 154.46** ( 70) 10.83 (12) .05 .90 .96 .93
Partially
mediated model 3
compared
to
partially
mediated model 1
Nonmediated 1 297.90** ( 85)
-143.44**
( 5)
.08 .84 .89 .86 Nonmediated model 1
compared
to
partially
mediated model 3 (nested models)
Nonmediated 2 301.25** ( 85) -146.79** ( 5)
.08 .84 .89 .86 Nonmediated model 2
compared
to
partially
mediated model 3 (nested models)
**
p
< .01
change
in
chi-square
tests revealed that
partially
mediated models 2 and 3 were not
significantly
better than the first
partially
mediated model and
were less
parsimonious.
Lastly,
the nonmediated model test
comparisons
were conducted. In the first nonmediated model,
the
paths
from network benefits to career outcomes
were constrained to
zero,
but the
paths
from social
resources to career outcomes were
freely
estimated.
The second nonmediated model also constrained
the
paths
from network benefits to career outcomes
to zero but allowed the
paths
from network struc-
ture to career outcomes to be estimated. Because
the nonmediated models were not nested within
partially
mediated model 1 but were nested within
partially
mediated model
3,
the nonmediated mod-
els were
compared
to
partially
mediated model 3.
Both nonmediated models fit
significantly
worse
than the third
partially
mediated model. Table 2
reports
the
change
in
chi-square
for all nested
model
comparisons
and other fit indexes for all
seven
comparative
models.
The nested model
comparisons
indicated that the
model
including
the
hypothesized
effects and di-
rect effects from network structure to network ben-
efits
(partially
mediated model
1)
was the best-
fitting,
most
parsimonious
model. Thus,
we
retained this model as the
best-fitting
model and
interpret
it below in order to examine the
hypoth-
esized
relationships.
Examination of the standardized
parameter
esti-
mates indicated that 14 of the 17
hypothesized
relationships
were
significant
and in the
predicted
directions
(see Figure 2)
when the control variables
were accounted for.
Specifically, Hypotheses
la
and lb
positively
relate weak ties to contacts in
other functions
(la)
and at
higher
levels
(lb).
The
statistically significant parameter
estimates
(b
=
.14 and
.44,
respectively; p
<
.01)
indicated
sup-
port
for
Hypotheses
la and lb.
Hypotheses
2a and
2b
positively
relate structural holes to contacts in
other functions
(2a)
and at
higher
levels
(2b).
A
statistically significant parameter
estimate was
found for the
path
between structural holes and
higher-level
contacts
(b
=
.31,
p
<
.01)
providing
support
for
Hypothesis
2b,
but the estimated
path
between structural holes and cross-function con-
tacts was
only marginally significant
(b
=
.09,
t =
1.94). Overall,
the
hypotheses relating
network
structure to social resources were
supported.
Hypothesis
3 was
supported,
as a
statistically
significant parameter
estimate was found for the
path
between contacts in other functions and ac-
cess to information
(b
=
.15,
p
<
.01). Hypotheses
4a, 4b,
and 4c relate contacts at
higher
levels to
access to information
(4a),
access to resources
(4b),
and career
sponsorship
(4c).
A
statistically signifi-
cant
parameter
path
from contacts at
higher
levels to access to informa-
tion
(b
=
.14,
p
<
.05)
and from these contacts to
career
sponsorship
(b
=
.29,
p
<
.01),
but the
path
between these contacts and access to resources was
not
significant.
Thus,
support
was indicated for
Hypotheses
4a and 4c,
but not for
Hypothesis
4b.
Hypotheses
5a, 5b,
and 5c
positively
relate access
to information to
salary (5a), promotions
(5b),
and
April
230
FIGURE 2
Results of Structural
Equation
Modela
Career
-W
Career
\
Sponsorship
e
.32
o
Satisfaction J
a
Fit:
X2
=
165.25, df
=
82, p
<
.01; AGFI
=
.91, NFI
=
.92, CFI
=
.96. Parameter estimates are from the
completely
standardized solution
and are
significant
at
p
< .05.
Hypothesized relationships
are
represented by
bold arrows, and
relationships
that were not
hypothesized
are
represented by light
arrows.
Hypothesized paths
that were not
significant
were eliminated from the model. Control variables and their
paths
are not shown for the sake of
clarity.
Current
salary
was a
logarithm.
career satisfaction
(5c).
The results indicated
sup-
port
for
Hypotheses
5b
(b
=
.11,
p
<
.05)
and 5c
(b
=
.14, p
<
.05)
but failed to
support Hypothesis
5a.
Respondents
who indicated
greater
access to
information
reported
more
promotions
and
greater
career satisfaction.
Hypotheses
6a, 6b,
and 6c
pos-
itively
relate access to resources to
salary (6a), pro-
motions
(6b),
and career satisfaction
(6c).
The re-
sults indicated
support
for
Hypotheses
6a
(b
=
.11,
p
<
.05)
and 6c
(b
=
.28,
p
<
.01).
Respondents
who
indicated
greater
access to resources
reported
higher
salaries and
greater
career satisfaction.
Hy-
pothesis
7 was
supported
as a
significant, positive
parameter
path
from
access to information to access to resources
(b
=
.56,
p
<
.01).
Fully supporting Hypotheses
8a, 8b,
and
8c,
respondents
who
reported greater
career
sponsorship reported higher
salaries, more
promo-
tions,
and
greater
career
satisfaction,
as all three
parameter
estimates were
statistically significant
and
positive
(b
=
.12, .17, and .32,
respectively;
all
p
<
.01).
Although
not
hypothesized,
there were two other
significant path
estimates
pertaining
to social
cap-
ital in
partially
mediated model 1:
significant, neg-
ative
parameter
estimates were found for the
path
from weak ties to access to information (b
=
-.14,
p
<
.05)
and for the
path
from weak ties to career
sponsorship
(b
=
-.28,
p
<
.01).
None of the
paths
from structural holes to the network benefit vari-
ables were
statistically significant.
Finally,
consistent with
previous findings
in the
careers
literature,
several of the control variables
were
significantly (p
<
.05)
related to the career
success outcomes.
Salary
was
predicted by years
since
graduation (b
=
.41),
marital status
(b
=
.22),
spouse employment (b
=
-.14),
M.B.A.
degree
(b
=
.22),
employment gaps
(b
=
-.18),
size of
employ-
ing organization
(b
=
.12),
metropolitan
area
(b
=
.16),
and
management occupation (b
=
.16).
The
number of
promotions
was
predicted by years
since
graduation (b
=
.33),
marital status
(b
=
.11),
M.B.A.
degree (b
=
.17), employment gaps
(-.20),
number of
employing organizations (b
=
.18),
and
management occupation (b
=
.14).
Career satisfac-
tion was
predicted by
network size
(b
=
.11), gen-
der
(.11),
and the size of the
employing organiza-
tion
(b
=
.11).
The social
capital
and control
variables
together explained
47
percent
of the vari-
ance in current
salary,
34
percent
of the variance in
promotions,
and 36
percent
of the variance in ca-
reer satisfaction. The
explained
variance in the
career outcomes was
greater
in the alternative
hy-
pothesized
model than in the control-variables-
only
model: the latter
explained
42
percent
of
salary,
29
percent
of
promotions,
and 5
percent
of career satisfaction.
DISCUSSION
Support
of our
hypothesized
model revealed the
importance
of social
capital
to career success.
Spe-
2001 231
Journal
cifically,
our results demonstrate that two measures
of network structure,
weak ties and structural
holes,
positively
relate to the level of social re-
sources embedded in a
person's
network,
measured
as the number of
developmental
contacts in func-
tional areas of an
organization
other than their own
and at
higher
levels in the
organization.
Social re-
sources were in turn
positively
related to current
salary,
number of
promotions
over the career,
and
career satisfaction
through
their
positive
relation-
ships
with three measures of network benefits-
access to information, access to resources,
and ca-
reer
sponsorship.
The
veridicality
of these results
was
strengthened by
the control of a diverse set of
demographic,
human
capital,
and
organizational
variables as well as network size. This was
clearly
demonstrated
by
the
significantly
better fit of the
model
including
the social
capital
and control vari-
ables over the alternative model
containing only
the control variables as
predictors.
Our
findings
have
implications
both for the social
capital
and
careers literatures.
Social
Capital
The current results
provide support
for the
model of social
capital
used in the current
study
and
help
to resolve a
growing controversy
in the
literature
regarding
the
conceptualization
of social
capital.
Various scholars have tended to focus on
only
one
aspect
of the social network as the defin-
ing
element of social
capital,
but the current
study
demonstrates the
analytic utility
of
separately
de-
fining
social resources and social network structure
and
empirically examining
the
ways
in which net-
work structure influences the level of social re-
sources embedded in a network.
Specifically,
the results of this
study
show that
the number of weak ties and the level of structural
holes in an actor's network each has
independent
effects on the level of social resources. As indicated
by
the
larger parameter
estimates,
the weak ties
measure
appears
to have the
stronger
and more
robust effect on social resources. However,
weak
ties were
significantly, negatively
related to two of
the network benefit
measures,
access to informa-
tion and career
sponsorship.
These results
supply
additional
support
for the traditional
emphasis
placed
on the value of
strong
ties in
providing
information and social
support (Festinger
et
al.,
1950; Krackhardt, 1992).
That is,
people
with
whom one has a
strong relationship
are
likely
to
provide
one with more information and assistance.
Overall,
these results redress the
overemphasis
in
weak tie
theory
on the
strength
of the tie
per
se,
rather than on its function as a
bridge
for social
benefits. Our results
suggest
that,
from a
practical
standpoint,
it
may
be best for a
person
to invest in
the
development
of weak ties to increase the level
of social resources embedded in his or her network,
but then to invest
(perhaps selectively)
in
strength-
ening
those ties to increase the benefits
actually
mobilized on his or her behalf.
Previous research has demonstrated direct rela-
tions between network structure and several
organ-
izational outcomes,
such as
promotions
(Burt,
1992, 1997),
influence
(Brass
& Burkhardt, 1993),
and turnover (Krackhardt &
Porter, 1986).
The ef-
fects of social
capital
on these outcomes have often
been
theoretically explained
(but
not
empirically
tested)
as
occurring
because of the access to infor-
mation, resources,
and
sponsorship opportunities
resulting
from social contacts
(e.g.,
Blau & Alba,
1982; Burt, 1997).
The current
study
was
unique
for
its inclusion of these
mediating
variables that aid in
understanding why
social
capital
affects outcomes.
Specifically,
we found
support
for the role of access
to
and career
sponsorship
as full mediators of the relations between social
capital
and career success.
Support
for the medi-
ated rather than direct
paths
from social network
variables to career outcomes
suggests
that mere
"schmoozing"
with individuals outside of one's
work unit will not affect career outcomes unless
one is able to
reap
resources and
sponsorship
from
these contacts
(cf. Wayne
&
Liden, 1995).
Findings
of the current
investigation
also
suggest
that the value of social
capital may vary
with re-
spect
to the nature of the contacts that
comprise
a
social network.
Specifically,
we found that devel-
opmental
contacts in other functions were related
to access to information and
indirectly
to access to
resources but were not
significantly
related to ca-
reer
sponsorship. Developmental
contacts at
higher
organizational
levels were related to access to in-
formation and career
sponsorship
and,
indirectly,
to access to resources. Thus,
the location of devel-
opmental
contacts
appears
to be
differentially
re-
lated to the nature of the network benefits
pro-
vided. Consistent with traditional
mentoring
research,
higher-level
contacts
provided
more ca-
reer
sponsorship
than did those across functions.
With
respect
to resource access,
it is
likely
that
contacts in other functions did not have formal
authority
to
directly provide
resources to those in
other units. It was, however,
surprising
that con-
tacts at
levels did not
directly
relate to access to resources,
but
only indirectly
provided
resources
by providing
more information
to their
junior colleagues.
Future research is
needed to determine if the location of
exchange
contacts affects access to information, resources,
April
232
and
sponsorship opportunities differently
at each
stage
in a career. For
example,
close contacts with
the immediate
superior
and
peers may
be most
beneficial
during
an
employee's early
socialization
in an
organization (Liden, Wayne,
&
Stilwell, 1993;
Major,
Kozlowski, Chao,
&
Gardner, 1995),
but after
she or he has been assimilated into the
organiza-
tion,
contacts with individuals at
higher
levels and
other functions
may prove
most useful.
The
varying
effects of the
mediating
variables on
career outcomes also invites additional research.
Although simple
correlations between the three
mediating
variables and the three career outcomes
were all
positive
and
significant, path
estimates
within the model showed that career
sponsorship
was the most
important
network benefit in terms of
career success. The
importance
of career
sponsor-
ship
relative to resource and information access
should be verified in future research. Future re-
search should also examine the effects of other
types
of
networks,
such as those
composed
of
friendship
and
interorganizational
ties,
on career
success.
Careers
The results of the current
investigation strongly
suggest
the relevance of
integrating
social
capital
theory
with research on careers. Previous research
demonstrating
the influence of social
capital
on
career success variables such as
promotions (Brass,
1984; Burt, 1992)
has not been linked to the litera-
ture on careers.
Similarly,
most studies in the ca-
reers literature have not included social
capital
as
an antecedent of career success
(Judge
&
Bretz,
1994;
Judge
et
al., 1995;
Wayne
et
al., 1999).
Inves-
tigations
of career success that have
acknowledged
the
importance
of social
capital
have
typically
not
used social network methods
(e.g.,
Gould &
Penley,
1984; O'Hara, Beehr,
&
Colarelli, 1994).
To our
knowledge,
no
previous attempt
has been made to
examine social
capital
within the context of the
careers literature.
In the current
study,
an
explicit attempt
was
made to
merge
the literatures on social
capital
and
careers.
Specifically, many
of the variables in-
cluded in
comprehensive investigations
of career
success
(Judge
et
al., 1995)
were tested as controls.
Thus,
the added contribution of social
capital, op-
erating through
the
mediating
variables,
was
clearly
demonstrated.
Additionally,
most of the re-
search on networks and careers has focused on
promotion
rates or
mobility. By incorporating
both
objective
and
subjective
measures of career suc-
cess,
we were able to more
readily compare
the
social
capital
effects on career success found here
with
findings
from other career success research in
the
organizational
literature. These results
provide
a
strong
incentive for future researchers to consider
social
capital
as a
key
variable in relation to both
objective
and
subjective
career success.
The
findings
of the current
study
also have im-
portant implications
for a
key
subfield of the ca-
reers
research,
mentoring.
It is assumed in some
mentoring
studies that
proteges
have
only
one men-
tor at a time
(Chao
et
al., 1992;
Judge
&
Bretz, 1994;
Tepper, 1995).
In other studies
(Dreher
&
Ash,
1990;
Turban &
Dougherty,
1994),
researchers have
assessed the amount of
mentoring
received without
differentiating
between
respondents
with
single
and those with
multiple
mentors. Our results show
that individuals with
multiple
mentors
reap greater
career benefits than those
having only
one mentor.
Furthermore,
the results indicate that the more con-
tacts that
people
establish at
high organizational
levels,
the more
they gain
from career
sponsorship.
Kram's
(1985;
Kram &
Isabella, 1985)
interviews
suggested
that
peers play
an
important
role in ca-
reer
development,
but the current
investigation
is
unique
because it relates a full set of
developmental
relationships involving superiors
and
peers
situ-
ated in different
parts
of
organizations
to level of
career success. In
essence,
we have
expanded
the
study
of
mentorship
to include a network of men-
tors who should be located in various functions of
and at
higher
levels in the focal
employee's organi-
zation.
This notion of a
"mentoring
network"
suggests
many topics
for future research. For
example,
su-
periors may
be beneficial not
only
for the mentor-
ing
that
they personally provide,
but also for intro-
ducing
subordinates to influential
organization
members who
subsequently play
a role in mentor-
ing
the subordinates
(Sparrowe
&
Liden, 1997).
Longitudinal
research could assess the
way
in
which a newcomer to an
organization develops
a
mentoring
network. Future research
might
also ex-
amine the
type
of
mentoring provided by
each men-
tor. For
example,
one mentor
might provide
emo-
tional
support
and
spiritual guidance.
Another
mentor
might help
the
protege
with task and tech-
nical advice. Yet another mentor
might
assist the
protege
in
coping
with
organizational politics.
Dis-
covering
that each mentor does indeed
provide
a
unique type
of advice or assistance would
explain
our
finding
that the
larger
the
mentoring
network,
the more beneficial it is to the
protege.
In
essence,
the more
mentors,
the
greater
the
coverage
of dif-
ferent
types
of advice and
support. Conversely,
our
results demonstrate the
constraining
weakness of
multiplex
ties in which an individual is in the
precarious position
of
relying
on the same tie(s) for
2001 233
Journal
multiple types
of assistance
(Podolny
&
Barron,
1997).
In
summary,
the current
study
makes several
contributions to the literature:
(1)
We enhanced
research on social networks
by integrating
contend-
ing
theories of social
capital, testing
an
analytical
distinction between network structure and network
resources and
testing
for their
relationship.
(2)
We
extended the social
capital
and careers literatures
by testing
for the effects of social
capital
on a full
set of career outcomes after
controlling
for other
variables related to careers.
(3)
Our
integrated
so-
cial
capital theory
of career success was further
supported by
the
findings
that
information,
re-
source access,
and
sponsorship play
a
mediating
role in the relation between social network vari-
ables and career outcomes. And
(4)
we
augmented
the
mentoring
literature
by examining
the influ-
ence that
multiple developmental relationships
have on career success and
by assessing
the
way
in
which the location of the
developmental
contact in
an
organization
influenced a
protege's
access to
and career
sponsorship.
Limitations
Although
its
large sample
and numerous control
variables
represent strengths
of the
study,
a limita-
tion is
that,
owing
to the cross-sectional
design,
it
was not
possible
to make inferences
concerning
causal direction for the
paths
tested in our model.
For
example,
rather than
higher-level
contacts
pro-
viding
information to focal individuals,
perhaps
focal individuals who have
gained
access to infor-
mation are more attractive to contacts at
higher
organizational
levels. Another limitation associ-
ated with the
design
is that valid variance in career
outcomes
explained by
differences in
organiza-
tions, culture,
or norms was treated as error. An
ideal
study
would include a
large sample
of indi-
viduals within a
large sample
of
organizations.
This
would enable the researcher to examine
organiza-
tion
type,
and
accompanying
culture and
norms,
as
multiple-level
effects in a
comprehensive
model of
career success.
A second limitation of the
study
is the
possibility
of common method bias,
which can inflate relation-
ships among
variables. We took several
steps
to
minimize the
problem, including separating
the
items for the
independent
and
dependent
variables
into different sections of the
survey
instrument and
using
different
question
formats for each set of vari-
ables. Because the social
capital
variables are be-
havioral and the career outcome variables are fac-
tual or attitudinal,
common method bias should
have been minimized.
A third limitation is that
although
the initial re-
sponse
rate of 28
percent
is
typical
for mailed sur-
veys,
the effective
response
rate of 17.3
percent
that
pertained
after we had removed
responses
from
self-employed
individuals and
part-time employ-
ees and those with
missing
data is somewhat low.
Although nonrespondents
did not differ from re-
spondents
on
demographic
characteristics or
major
in
school,
it was found that the
response
rate for
M.B.A.
graduates
was lower than that for under-
graduate
alumni. It is therefore
possible
that the
sample
is not as
representative
of the
population
of
M.B.A.'s as it is of the
population
of
undergradu-
ates. A final limitation of our research is the use of
single-item
scales for some of the variables. Al-
though single-item
scales are common in social
network
research,
it would be
preferable
in future
research to use three or more items for each mea-
sure so that
reliability
can be estimated.
In
sum,
the
path
model tested in the current
investigation represents
an
attempt
to test an inte-
grated theory
of social
capital
and career success.
Support
for our
hybrid
model
suggests
that both the
social
capital
and careers literatures can be en-
hanced
through integration.
It follows that future
research on career success would benefit from the
inclusion of social
capital
variables.
REFERENCES
Aryee,
S.,
Chay,
Y. W., & Tan, H. H. 1994. An examina-
tion of the antecedents of
subjective
career success
among
a
managerial sample
in
Singapore.
Human
Relations,
47: 487-509.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett,
D. G. 1980.
Significance
tests
and
goodness
of fit in the
analysis
of covariance
structures.
Psychological
Bulletin,
88: 588-606.
Bernard,
R. H., Killworth, P., Kronenfeld, D., & Sailer, L.
1984. The
problem
of informant
accuracy:
The va-
lidity
of
retrospective
data. In B.
J. Siegel (Ed.)
&
A. R. Beals & S. A.
Tyler (Assoc. Eds.),
Annual
review
of anthropology,
vol. 13: 495-517. Palo Alto,
CA: Annual Reviews.
Blau, J. R., & Alba, R. D. 1982.
Empowering
nets of
participation.
Administrative Science
Quarterly,
27: 363-379.
Bollen,
K. A. 1989. Structural
equations
with latent
variables. New York:
Wiley.
Bolles, R. N. 1992. What color is
your parachute?
Berke-
ley,
CA: Ten
Speed
Press.
Brass, D.
J.
1984.
Being
in the
right place:
A structural
analysis
of individual influence in an
organization.
Quarterly,
29: 518-539.
Brass,
D. J., & Burkhardt,
M. E. 1993. Potential
power
and
power
use: An
investigation
of structure and behav-
April
234
ior.
Academy of Management Journal,
36: 441-
470.
Bridges,
W.
P.,
& Villemez,
W.
J.
1986. Informal
hiring
and income in the labor market. American
Sociolog-
ical
Review,
51: 574-582.
Burt,
R. S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure
of competition. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University
Press.
Burt, R. S. 1997. The
contingent
value of social
capital.
Quarterly,
42: 339-365.
Chao,
G. 1997.
Mentoring phases
and outcomes. Journal
of
Vocational
Behavior,
51: 15-28.
Chao, G., Walz, P., & Gardner, P. 1992. Formal and infor-
mal
mentorships:
A
comparison
on
mentoring
func-
tions and contrast with nonmentored
counterparts.
Personnel
Psychology,
45: 619-636.
Clark, K.,
&
Fujimoto,
T. 1991. Product
development
performance.
Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Coleman, J. S. 1990. Foundations
of
social
theory.
Cam-
bridge,
MA: Harvard
University
Press.
Davis,
S.
M.,
& Lawrence,
P. R. 1977. Matrix.
Reading,
MA:
Addison-Wesley.
De Graaf, N. D., &
Flap,
H. D. 1988. With a little
help
from
my
friends: Social
capital
as an
explanation
of occu-
pational
status and income in the Netherlands, the
United States and West
Germany.
Social
Forces,
67:
452-472.
Dreher, G. F., &
Ash,
R. A. 1990. A
comparative study
of
mentoring among
men and women in
managerial,
professional,
and technical
positions. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology,
75: 539-546.
Ferris, G. R., &
Judge,
T. A. 1991. Personnel/human re-
sources
management:
A
political
influence
perspec-
tive.
Journal of Management,
17: 447-488.
Festinger,
L., Schacter, S., &
Back,
K. W. 1950. Social
pressures
in
informal groups.
Stanford, CA: Stan-
ford
University
Press.
Freeman, L. C.,
Romney,
A. K., & Freeman,
S. C. 1987.
Cognitive
structure and informant
accuracy.
Ameri-
can
Anthropologist,
89: 310-325.
French, J.
R. & Raven, B. 1968. The bases of social
power.
In D.
Cartwright
& A. Zander
(Eds.), Group dynam-
ics
(3rd ed.):
259-269. New York:
Harper
& Row.
Friedkin,
N. E. 1980. A test of the structural features of
Granovetter's
strength
of weak ties
theory.
Social
Networks,
2: 411-422.
Galbraith, J.
R. 1977.
Organizational design. Reading,
MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Galbraith, J.
R. 1994.
Competing
with
flexible
lateral
organizations (2nd ed.). Reading,
MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Gerhart, B. A., & Milkovich, G. T. 1989. Salaries,
salary
growth,
and
promotions
of men and women in a
large, private
firm. In R. T.
Michael,
H. I. Hartmann,
& B. O'Farrell
(Eds.), Pay equity: Empirical inquir-
ies: 23-43.
Washington,
DC: National
Academy
Press.
Gist,
M. E., &
Mitchell,
T. N. 1992.
Self-efficacy:
A theo-
retical
analysis
of its determinants and
malleability.
Review,
17: 183-211.
Gould, S., &
Penley,
L. E. 1984. Career
strategies
and
salary progression:
A
study
of their
relationships
in a
municipal bureaucracy. Organizational
Behavior
and Human
Performance,
34: 244-265.
Granovetter,
M. S. 1973. The
strength
of weak ties. Amer-
ican
Journal of Sociology,
6: 1360-1380.
Granovetter,
M. S. 1982. The
strength
of weak ties: A
network
theory
revisited. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin
(Eds.),
Social structure and network
analysis:
105-
130.
Beverly
Hills, CA:
Sage.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., &
Wormley,
W. M.
1990. Effects of race on
organizational experiences,
job performance
evaluations, and career outcomes.
33: 64-86.
Hackman, J. R.,
&
Oldham,
G. R. 1980. Work
redesign.
Readings,
MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Hall, D. T. 1976. Careers in
organizations.
Santa
Monica, CA:
Goodyear.
Harman,
H. H. 1967. Modern
factor analysis (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Hayduk,
L. A. 1987. Structural
equation modeling
with
LISREL: Essentials and advances. Baltimore:
John
Hopkins University
Press.
Hickson, D.
J., Hinings,
C.
A., Lee, C. A., Schneck,
R.
E.,
&
Pennings, J.
M. 1971. A
"strategic contingencies"
theory
of
intraorganizational power.
Administrative
Science
Quarterly,
14: 378-397.
Homans,
G. C. 1950. The human
group.
New York: Har-
court,
Brace & World.
Ibarra,
H. 1993. Network
centrality, power,
and innova-
tion involvement: Determinants of technical and ad-
ministrative roles.
Academy of Management Jour-
nal,
36: 471-501.
Ibarra, H. 1995. Race,
opportunity,
and
diversity
in social
circles in
managerial
networks.
Academy of
Man-
agement Journal,
38: 673-703.
Joreskog,
K. G., & Sorbom, D. 1993. LISREL 8: User's
reference guide. Chicago:
Scientific Software Inter-
national.
Judge,
T. A., &
Bretz,
R. D. 1994. Political influence
behavior and career success.
Journal of Manage-
ment,
20: 43-65.
Judge,
T.
A., Cable,
D.
M., Boudreau, J. W.,
& Bretz, R. D.
1995. An
empirical investigation
of the
predictors
of
executive career success. Personnel
Psychology,
48:
485-519.
235 2001
Journal
Kanter,
R. M. 1977. Men and women
of
the
corporation.
New York: Basic Books.
Kelloway,
E. K. 1998.
Using
LISREL
for
structural
equation modeling:
A researcher's
guide.
Thou-
sand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. 1994.
Bringing
the individ-
ual back in: A structural
analysis
of the internal
market for
reputation
in
organizations. Academy of
Management Journal,
37: 87-109.
Kirchmeyer,
C. 1998. Determinants of
managerial
career
success: Evidence and
explanation
of male/female
differences.
Journal of Management,
24: 673-692.
Knoke, D., &
Kuklinski, J. H. 1982. Network
analysis
(Sage university paper
series on
quantitative appli-
cations in the social sciences no.
07-028). Beverly
Hills, CA:
Sage.
Krackhardt, D. 1992. The
strength
of
strong
ties: The
importance
of
philos
in
organizations.
In R. Eccles &
N. Nohria
(Eds.),
Networks and
organizations:
Structure, form
and action: 216-239. Boston: Har-
vard Business School Press.
Krackhardt, D., &
Porter,
L. W. 1986. The snowball effect:
Turnover embedded in communication networks.
Journal of Applied Psychology,
71: 50-55.
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S.,
&
Liden,
R. C. 1999.
Psycho-
logical empowerment
as a multidimensional con-
struct: A test of construct
validity.
Educational and
Psychological
Measurement,
59: 127-142.
Kram,
K. E. 1985.
Mentoring
at work:
Developmental
relationships
in
organizational life.
Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman.
Kram,
K.
E.,
&
Isabella,
L. A. 1985.
Mentoring
alterna-
tives: The role of
peer relationships
in career devel-
opment. Academy of Management Journal,
28:
110-132.
Liden,
R.
C.,
Wayne,
S.
J.,
&
Stilwell,
D. 1993. A
longitu-
dinal
study
on the
early development
of leader-
member
exchanges.
Journal
of Applied Psychology,
78: 662-674.
Lin,
N. 1990. Social resources and social
mobility:
A
structural
theory
of status attainment. In R. L.
Breiger
(Ed.),
Social
mobility
and social structure: 247-
271. New York:
Cambridge University
Press.
Lin, N. 1999.
Building
a network
theory
of social
capital.
Connections, 22(1):
28-51.
Lin, N., Ensel,
W. M., &
Vaughn, J.
C. 1981a. Social
resources and
occupational
status attainment. Social
Forces,
59: 1163-1181.
Lin, N., Ensel, W. M.,
&
Vaughn, J.
C. 1981b. Social
resources and
strength
of ties. American
Sociologi-
cal
Review,
46: 393-405.
Lincoln, J.
R. & Miller, J. 1979. Work and
friendship
ties
in
organizations:
A
comparative analysis
of rela-
tional networks. Administrative Science
Quarterly,
24: 181-199.
London, M., &
Stumpf,
S. A. 1982.
Managing
careers.
Reading,
MA:
Addison-Wesley.
London, M., &
Stumpf,
S. A. 1983. Effects of candidate
characteristics on
management promotion
decisions:
An
experimental study.
Personnel
Psychology,
36:
241-259.
Luthans, F.,
Hodgetts,
R.
M.,
&
Rosenkrantz,
S. A. 1988.
Real
managers. Cambridge,
MA:
Ballinger.
Major,
E.
A., Kozlowski, S. W., Chao, G.
T., & Gardner,
P. D. 1995. A
longitudinal investigation
of newcomer
expectations, early
socialization
outcomes, and the
moderating
effects of role
development
factors. Jour-
nal
of Applied Psychology,
80: 418-429.
March, J. G.,
&
Simon,
H. A. 1958.
Organizations.
New
York:
Wiley.
Marsden,
P. V. 1990. Network data and measurement. In
W. R. Scott &
J.
Blake
(Eds.),
Annual review
of
sociology,
vol. 16: 435-463. Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews.
Marsden, P. V., & Hurlbert, J.
S. 1988. Social resources
and
mobility
outcomes: A
replication
and extension.
Social
Forces,
66: 1039-1059.
Massie, J. L. 1965.
Management theory.
In
J.
G. March
(Ed.),
Handbook
of organizations:
387-422. Chi-
cago:
Rand
McNally.
McPherson, J. M.,
Popielarz,
P. A., Drobnic, S. 1992.
Social networks and
organizational dynamics.
American
Sociological Review,
57: 153-170.
Medoff, J. L., &
Abraham,
K. G. 1981. Are those
paid
more
really
more
productive?
The case of
experience.
Journal of
Human
Resources,
16: 186-216.
Murray,
S.
O., Rankin, J. H., & McGill, D. W. 1981.
Strong
ties and
job
information.
Sociology of
Work and
Occupations,
8: 119-136.
Noe, R. A. 1988. An
investigation
of the determinants of
successful
assigned mentoring relationships.
Per-
sonnel
Psychology,
41: 457-479.
O'Hara, K. B., Beehr, T.
A.,
& Colarelli, S. M. 1994.
Organizational centrality:
A third dimension of in-
traorganizational
career movement.
Journal of Ap-
plied
Behavioral
Science,
30: 198-216.
Pfeffer, J.
1989. A
political perspective
on careers: Inter-
ests, networks,
and environments. In M. G. Arthur,
D. T.
Hall,
& B. S. Lawrence
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
career
theory:
380-396. New York:
Cambridge
Uni-
versity
Press.
Pfeffer, J., Salancik,
G. R., &
Leblibici,
H. 1978. Uncer-
tainty
and social influence in
organizational
deci-
sion
making.
In M. W.
Meyer (Ed.)
Environments
and
organizations:
306-332. San Francisco:
Jossey-
Bass.
Podolny, J. M.,
& Baron, J.
N. 1997. Resources and rela-
tionships:
Social networks and
mobility
in the work-
place.
American
Sociological Review,
62: 673-693.
Popielarz,
P. A. 1994. Do weak ties
span longer
dis-
236
April
tances?
Paper presented
at the International Social
Networks Conference,
New Orleans.
Rogers,
E. M., & Kincaid,
D. L. 1981. Communication
networks. New York: Free Press.
Seibert,
S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. 1999. Proac-
tive
personality
and career success. Journal
of Ap-
plied Psychology,
84: 416-427.
Sparrowe,
R. T.,
&
Liden,
R. C. 1997. Process and struc-
ture in leader-member
exchange. Academy of
Man-
agement Review,
22: 522-552.
Sparrowe,
R.
T., Liden,
R.
C.,
Wayne,
S. J., & Kraimer,
M. L. 2001. Social
exchange processes,
social struc-
ture, and
performance. Academy of Management
Journal,
44: 316-325.
Sparrowe,
R. T., &
Popielarz,
P. A. 1995. Weak ties and
structural holes: The
effects of
network structure
on careers.
Paper presented
at the annual
meeting
of
the
Academy
of
Management,
Vancouver.
Spreitzer,
G. M. 1995. Individual
empowerment
in the
workplace:
Dimensions, measurement, and valida-
tion.
38: 1442-
1465.
Spreitzer,
G. M. 1996. Social structural characteristics of
psychological empowerment. Academy of Manage-
ment
Journal,
39: 483-504.
Tepper,
B.
J.
1995.
Upward
maintenance tactics in
super-
visory mentoring
and
nonmentoring relationships.
38: 1191-1205.
Thompson,
J. D. 1967.
Organizations
in action. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Tsui, A. S. 1984. A role set
analysis
of
managerial repu-
tation.
Organizational
Behavior and Human Per-
formance,
34: 64-96.
Turban, D. B. &
Dougherty,
T. W. 1994. Role of
protege
personality
in
receipt
of
mentoring
and career suc-
cess.
37: 688-
702.
Wayne,
S.
J.,
&
Liden,
R. C. 1995. Effects of
impression
management
on
performance ratings:
A
longitudinal
study. Academy of Management Journal,
38: 232-
260.
Wayne,
S.
J., Liden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I. K.
1999. The role of human
capital,
motivation, and
supervisor sponsorship
to career success.
Journal of
Organizational Behavior,
20: 577-595.
Weber, M. 1946. From Max Weber:
Essays
in
sociology
(H.
H. Gerth & C. W. Mills, eds.).
New York: Oxford
University
Press.
Whitely,
W.,
Dougherty,
T.
W., & Dreher, G. F. 1991. The
relationship
of career
mentoring
and socioeconomic
origin
to
managers'
and
professionals' early
career
progress. Academy of Management Journal,
34:
331-351.
Scott E. Seibert
(Ph.D.,
Cornell
University)
is an assistant
professor
of
management
and labor relations at the
James
J.
Nance
College
of Business Administration, Cleveland
State
University.
His interests in
personality, interper-
sonal
processes,
and social networks inform his research
on
group
decision
making, mentoring,
and career suc-
cess. He will be
joining
the
department
of
managerial
studies at the
University
of Illinois at
Chicago
in the fall
of 2001.
Maria L. Kraimer
(Ph.D., University
of Illinois at Chi-
cago)
is an assistant
professor
of
management
and labor
relations at the
James J.
Nance
College
of Business Ad-
ministration, Cleveland State
University.
Her research
interests include career-related
issues,
employee adjust-
ment, and the
employee-employer relationship.
She will
be
joining
the
department
of
managerial
studies at the
University
of Illinois at
Chicago
in the fall of 2001.
Robert C. Liden
(Ph.D.,
University
of
Cincinnati)
is a
professor
of
management
at the
University
of Illinois at
Chicago.
His research focuses on
interpersonal processes
within the context of such
topics
as
leadership, groups,
career
progression,
and
employment
interviews.
2001 237

A Social Capital Theory of Career Success

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Social Capital Theory of Career Success

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Social Capital Theory of Career Success

Author(s): Scott E. Seibert, Maria L. Kraimer and Robert C. Liden

You might also like