Dimitrova Review Of Cayey


Published on

Review of Social Capital value Add by M. Cayley

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dimitrova Review Of Cayey

  1. 1. Dimitrina (Dima) Dimitrova, Ph. D. Dimitrina (Dima) Dimitrova, Ph. D. Review of Social Capital Value Add: Value Based Management for the Networked Age Michael Cayley, BPR, APMCP, MBA Draft July 29, 2009. Michael Cayley has a vision: a networked world where Internet links empowered individuals and enlightened companies and where the connections between them generate social capital. He has made it his mission to wake up managers and investors to the implications of this new world for their work. The objective of his paper - “Social Capital Value Add: Value Based Management for the Networked Age”, is to draw their attention to the rising role of corporate social capital and to propose a tool for its management. His work has two distinct parts. In the first part, he develops the argument that social capital has become the fastest growing driver of value for companies. In the second part, Michael sketches a method for valuation of corporate social capital - Social Capital Value Add (SCVA). The focus is on a specific form of social capital, considered most important – social capital arising in the online relations among individual company stakeholders. The paper incorporates arguments from the areas of social network analysis; technology and communications studies; marketing and value-based management. This bridging makes for a complex discussion that illustrates well both the difficulties and the opportunities of multidisciplinary work. It also means that the paper is inevitably not an in-depth discussion but rather a bricolage that draws support from Cayley’s business experience and a wide variety of sources to serve a particular purpose. A wealth of ideas are put forward in the paper: this review is limited to the ideas directly related to the concept of social capital. Part 1: The Importance of Corporate Social Capital It is worth distinguishing here between established concepts and recent ideas. The understanding that economic action is affected by the informal relations within and between organizations is captured in the term “embeddedness” which social scientists have studied for decades (Granovetter and Swedberg, 1991; Uzzi, 1996). Similarly, the concept of social capital - the idea that social relations bring benefits, including hard cash - has been around just as long as “embeddedness” (Burt, 1997; Lin, 1999; Coleman, 1988). However, the “embeddedness argument” of organizational performance has been at the periphery of economic theory while social capital has typically been applied to individuals and communities rather than organizations. It is only recently that academics and practitioners have started looking at how social capital applies to organizations. To put it differently, the concept of corporate social capital (CSC) has been slow in coming. When it finally arrived, however, it became heavily used. Researchers link the concept to strategic management (Leenders et al. 2001), strategic alliances (Todeva and Knocke, 2001), reputations (Weidman and Hennigs, 2006), and a host of other issues ranging from R&D collaboration to labour contracts (Leenders and Gabbay, 1999). In short, Michael is in good company, and he is staking his place in a field that is rapidly being populated. Part One of the paper demonstrates the importance of specific form of social capital, in which Michael is interested. All his arguments are familiar from the existing literature but they come from different fields and are rarely, if ever, put together. The embeddedness arguments from economic sociology and network analysis start the discussion: economic action is embedded and 1
  2. 2. organizational performance is contingent on the characteristics of social networks. One of the ways to view this impact of social relations on organizations is through the concept of corporate social capital, which focuses on the resources that are accessed through social relationships and that can either facilitate or impede the attainment of organizational goals. The second key argument suggests that broadband technology and the Internet have empowered individuals and dramatically increased the importance of social capital, particularly social capital arising online. Technology tremendously expanded access to information. It enabled individuals to create content online - capabilities previously reserved for broadcasting companies - and thus expanded their influence over others. In turn, games and recent forms of social networking services on the Internet increased interaction and the role of online networks in the certification of social credentials and in the reinforcement of identity and recognition. Finally, the third argument draws on marketing literature to show that social capital has replaced brand as the fastest growing source of corporate value. Symbolic branding was important in conditions when space was limited and communications expensive; its goal was to distill information and to convey the maximum information in the least amount of space and time. However, in online marketing space is unlimited and what matters is findability. Symbolic branding is inappropriate under such conditions. The awareness of these changes has led to memetic branding, which aims at creating a corporate message that resonates across diverse audiences (or their idea habitats) and spreading corporate presence online. It is this new marketing strategy that Michael Cayley links to corporate social capital. In order to be successful in their branding, companies need to reach their customers and other stakeholders through online social networks. This is where Michael stakes his claim; this is his niche among researchers and consultants of social capital. His main focus is on the type of social capital embedded in online relations. The central concept in his work is scaled-up social capital (SC*), i.e. social capital that is amplified by broadband and Internet technology. Further, while the consultants trying to put a dollar value on online connections focus on employees and managers, Michael examines customers and other stakeholders. He is interested in exchanges and influence processes among individuals who act simultaneously as producers and consumers. He refers to this social capital as Individual as Medium (I.A.M.) oriented social capital. His ideas are thus an unusual mix: they highlight the impact on corporate goals of online rather than traditional face-to-face relations, individual rather than company level interactions, and outside stakeholders rather than company staff. Some of the discussion requires more conceptual clarity and precision. For instance, at the heart of the argument is the concept of corporate social capital, but the term corporate social capital is never used. Partly, this is because the starting point of the argument is Nan Lin’s (1999) theoretical framework, and partly because the focus is on individual level activities and interactions that affect corporate performance and not on group or organizational interaction. As a result, the focus of the argument and the level of analysis are in places unclear. Such problems might be fewer if the discussion utilized the conceptual framework of corporate social capital instead of developing the arguments from the more general concept of social capital (Pennings and Lee, 1999, Lee and Guthrie, 2008; Krebs, 2008). Many sociologists will wince at the claim that corporations are “a form of individual”: the anthropomorphic model of organizations is hotly debated. We have to recognize that the term social capital is notorious for taking different meanings. The theory is still being developed. There are serious differences even among those analysts committed to its social networks roots. Some of these problems come back as conceptual issues in the second part of the paper but they do not undermine the main argument in Part 1: technological advances 2
  3. 3. have amplified social capital, broke the dominance of broadcast marketing, and increased the relevance of online interactions among organizational stakeholders for organizational performance. Part 2: Measuring Online Corporate Social Capital and Its Impact The second part of the paper is the first stab at developing a method for measuring and managing the specific type of social capital, in which Michael is interested – the method is called Social Capital Value Add (SCVA). Admittedly, this is only the beginning: the method is not yet developed and the paper only outlines the key ideas and major steps. The discussion below explores the us of the concept of social capital and leaves the rest of the ideas for other experts to examine. The objectives of the proposed method are two: first, it aims to show the extent, to which corporate earnings are affected by interactions among stakeholders, whether positively or negatively, and second, it seeks to capture the specific impact of these online interactions through social network analysis. Most of the discussion refers to the first objective. The logic is as follows: each company has online presence, i.e. there are numerous company- related materials available at websites, blogs, forums, or emails. A portion of this content is created, broadcast and controlled by the company. This part of online content is not considered an indicator of interaction with organizational stakeholders, their connections, or embedded resources. By contrast, the second portion of online content is created either in the interactions between the company and organizational stakeholders or in the interactions among organizational stakeholders themselves. Such interactively created content indicates the existence of connections that affect company performance, whether positively or negatively, and therefore it indicates the existence of corporate social capital. By its very nature, such interactions cannot be fully controlled by the corporation although they can be to some extent manipulated and managed. It is the authors (or “identities”) of this interactively created portion of online content that the method seeks to track. In turn, not all online authors are equally important for the company performance. Some of the authors already interact (or have interacted) directly with the company: for instance, an individual who post comments in an online consumer discussion group and at the same time is a member of company customer lists. In such cases, the company already has a connection to the individual and the opportunity to influence him or her. The big unknown and one of the major risks for the company (besides the negative online content, of course) are authors of online content, who do not interact directly with the company. The gap between the known authors and all the authors is interpreted as an indicator of the risk coming from social relations, which the company does not control. This logic demonstrates how the method will capture the extent, to which company performance is exposed to online social capital. It is only after this exposure is examined, that the specific impact of social capital on company performance can be addressed, including capturing the positive and negative impact of online social relations on corporate performance. The last step of the methods will be to measure and analyze social capital through the traditional social network methods. In short, the proposed method is a marriage of valuation, online media monitoring, and social network techniques. Most of the discussion in the second part focuses on capturing the exposure of earning to the impact of social relations. The social network analysis part is only briefly touched upon – its development as part of the method is in the future. Yet, this leaves open a number of conceptual questions. For SNA analysts, the most important questions the approach raises are the nature of the network and the nature of the relations under investigation. 3
  4. 4. The concept of social capital is rooted in the notion of resources that are embedded in social relations, whether online or off-line, and a network position that provides access to them. The SCVA method seems to uncover sets of dyadic ties between the company and diverse organizational stakeholders rather than networks. For instance, company records identify customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders who are all connected to the focal company (ego) but there is no indication that they (alters) interact and are connected to each other. This issue is all the more important given that these stakeholders are very diverse, and, most likely, so are their ties with the focal company. At best, they are connected by a relation similar to co-membership: they are connected because they all have done business with the focal company, “know of” it and are perhaps subject to similar constraints and opportunities (Marin and Wellman, 2009). This relation among organizational stakeholders is tenuous at best. In turn, this raises the question if and how these tenuous ties create social capital. Not all ties convey corporate social capital ties because not all ties contribute to organizational goals (Leenders and Gabbay, 1999). Other network researchers point to mechanisms in which relations impact the attainment of goals and the specific relational or network characteristics that generate social capital. For instance, Uzzi, (1996) points to joint problem solving, Burt (1997) - to non-redundant information linked to structural holes. By all means, the discussion should specify the tangible or intangible resources that are embedded in social relations under investigation, outline their relevance to company goals, and describe the way the company can access them and turn them into opportunities. These conceptual issues need to be resolved before issues of measurement are addressed. The paper has done a tremendous amount of work bringing together diverse arguments to show the relevance of specific online relations for company performance. Michael’s marketing, business and finance background leads to an interesting application of social capital: he highlights the changes in marketing in the new business environment, shows that online interpersonal relations supersede company broadcast messages, and traces their impact on corporate performance. It is an application of corporate social capital via marketing that brings attention to connections wider than those usually traced. For CEOs and investors, perhaps the most valuable lesson is the understanding that social connections, and especially online connections, are emerging as a dominant factor for creating shared perception and that shared perception, in turn, affects organizational performance. This is the crest of the wave that they cannot afford to miss. For the rest of us, perhaps most exciting is the link between the end of broadcasting and social capital, the empowerment of individual with the augmentation of social connections. At the same time, there is yet a long way to go and significant hurdles to overcome in resolving conceptual issues, clarifying arguments, and perhaps narrowing down the focus and the scope of his ideas. As a first stab at the new method of social valuation, “Social Capital Value Add: Value Based Management for the Networked Age” acknowledge the essential work that remains to be done. References Burt, Ronald. 1997. The Contingent Value of Social Capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2. (Jun., 1997), pp. 339-365. Coleman, James. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 94, 95-121. Granovetter, M. and R. Swedberg, 1991. The Sociology of Economic Life. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press Inc. 4
  5. 5. Leenders, R. and S. M. Gabbay, Eds., 1999. Corporate Social Capital and Liability. Boston. Kluwer Acad. Publ. Lin, Nan. 1999. Building a Network Theory of Social Capital. Connections, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 28-51. Marin, A. and B. Wellman. Social Network Analysis: An Introduction. Forthcoming in Handbook of Social Network Analysis, Edited by Peter Carrington and John Scott, 2010. Uzzi, Brian. 1996. The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect. American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Aug., 1996), pp. 674-698. 5