- Exploring social networks - The Third Entity in the Dyad: The Relationship Diana Jones Presented at Sunbelt Conference, Vancouver April 2006 INSNA Sunbelt

- Exploring social networks -

The Third Entity in the Dyad: The Relationship

Diana Jones

Presented at Sunbelt Conference, Vancouver April 2006

INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 [email protected] © Diana Jones

Historical Development of SNA –The Key Players

© Diana Jones

Anthropology + Mathematics

Mathematics

Sociology

Psychology

Harvard

SNA

Moreno

KEY

Working in Same field

Influence on

Anthropology

ARROW KEYInfluence of individual

Influence of entire field

ANZPA Conference, Brisbane. January, 2006

The Interdisciplinary Foundations of SNA

Homans-Sociology

(INSNA)

SNA

Psychology

Sociology

AnthropologyMathematics

Gluckman (Manchester)

Barnes

Bott

Mitchell

Köhler

Granovetter

Lee White (Harvard)

Harary (Michigan Uni)Lazarsfeld

Wellman

Nadel

Lewin

Warner

Mayo -Busines

s

Hawthorne Studies

Moreno

Social Psychology

Social Economics -Harvard

CrossBorgatti

BurtFreeman

INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 © Diana Jones

Assists us explore,integrate, and build a body of knowledge on working with

Isolates

Structural Holes

One way relationships

Negative relationships, the ‘choose not to…….’

Exploring the relationship between the dyad………


- Tele - the flow of feeling between people

People are: • attracted to one another on specific criteria; like molecules of hydrogen and oxygen• repulsed; or move away from one another, similar to magnetic poles, or oil and water• neutral, i.e. don’t have a sense of the other. (Think of falling in love with someone who doesn’t know you exist - they might just prefer to have coffee with you.)

(Moreno 1953; Moreno 1987; Moreno 2000)


B


Symmetrical

Mutual, Reciprocal

The relationship is of mutual benefit to both actors

Mutual positive relationshipB chooses C on this criteria/question, and C chooses B

C

AB

Asymmetrical

Non-mutual, One way

This relationship is of benefit to B, A’s response to B is unclear. A may be unaware of B, be negative to B on the

criteria or question being explored. Expert networks are often characterised in this way

A

Third option: what is the relationship between this dyad?

A

B

C


Is this relationship a structural hole?

Are the A and C aware of one another?

Do A and C not choose one another on the criteria being researched

What is the significance of this to the work of this group?

Collecting social network data

1. Questions typically asked in networks are:•Who do you go to for information…..•Who do you go to for decisions on …..•Who do you go to for expert advice on…..•Who do you rely on to assist you get your work done…..

2. Elicit a structural response related to job function, whereas….•Who do you go to for advice….•Who do you trust to……•Who do you discuss work concerns with………•Who do you discuss and explore innovations with………•Who do you go to to find out what’s happening in the organisation?

3. Go to the heart of the socio-emotional networks of the groups you are working with.

© Diana Jones

Case StudyCriterion for exploration in this group: “who in this group do I trust to solve a work problem

with me, so we enhance consistency and quality in our organisation?”


General Manager

ManagerBusiness Support

Business Support

Business Support

Manager

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

4 Staff (3 Permanent, 1 Temp)


6 Staff



6 Staff


10 Staff (All Temps)



4 Staff


Site 4

Sites 1, 2 and 3

Management Team, located

at Site 4

Site 4

KEY

Formal Organisation Chart


Site 5

Density: Group Size: 17 Potential Ties: 272 Actual Ties: 143 Density: 53% Average number of positive choices made/received: 9 Range of positive choices received: 3-15 Range of positive choices made: 4-16

Average number of negative choices made/received: 2 Range of negative choices received: 0-7 Range of negative choices made: 0-8

Average number of mutual positive choices: 6 Range of mutual positive choices: 2-12

Group Statistics


All Positive Choices


Density of positive relationships is 53%

Sites 1, 2 and 3


at Site 4

Site 4

KEY

Site 5

All Positive Mutual Choices


There is a density of 46% of mutual relationships. This accounts for the strong work ethic

with the group.If we now look at one of these dyads, what do we discover?

Sites 1, 2 and 3


at Site 4

Site 4

KEY

Site 5

A mutual negative Choice


While positive mutual relationships are the glue in groups, negative choices are a natural aspect of group life. In looking at this group there appeared to be a high number of negative choices. The one relationship we are considering here shows a mutual negative relationship. This means both people did not choose the other with the criteria:who in this group do I trust to solve a work problem with me, so we enhance consistency and

quality in our organisation?”

This relationship of not choosing, is not displayed on the sociogram. However, a powerful force remains between these two people, affecting the group. Participants in this exploration received their individual choices, and many shared their reasons for choosing or not choosing one another.

As a result participants developed clearer perceptions of what constituted trust and collaboration in this group and in doing so a number of people developed positive relationships with more colleagues.

Summary

•Looking at only positive choices on criteria provides a small part of the relationship picture

Wise judgment and group facilitation skills are needed when gathering data, exploring and displaying negative choices

When SNAers researcher need to have clear agreements with participants on the purposes data is being collected for, how it will be used and who will see

what is generated.

© Diana Jones

Diana Joneswww.orgdev.co.nz

[email protected]

+64 4 499 5559

© Diana Jones

Documents

- Exploring social networks - The Third Entity in the Dyad: The Relationship Diana Jones Presented at Sunbelt Conference, Vancouver April 2006 INSNA Sunbelt