The third theoretical perspective utilised in career success research is social capital theory. Social capital is defined as a function of social structures that facilitate the actions of individuals (Coleman, 1990, p. 302) described by Belliveau, O’Reilly and Wade (1996, p. 1572) as “an individual's personal network and elite institutional affiliations”. Most definitions of social capital refer to the social resources that are available to an individual; in the context of organisations these are the network of relationships between peers, supervisors and subordinates (Arnold & Cohen, 2008; Hayes, 2000). Social capital theory suggests that individuals who are able to build and mobilise their social capital will achieve greater levels of career success. This section, discusses two areas of social capital research that have paid significant attention to ethnicity: informal networks and mentoring relationships.
34
Informal Networks
Building social capital through informal networking has been persistently linked to successful career outcomes and is considered an important aspect of managerial roles (Luthans, Hodgetts, & Rosenkrantz, 1988; Mintzberg, 1994). Informal networks are important for career success because they provide access to career-related resources such as information, assistance and guidance from others (Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001). Gaining control over such resources has been linked to increased power (Krackhardt, 1992), enhanced reputation (Kilduff & Krackhardt, 1994), and promotions (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001). Networking also provides social support and is an important means of accessing mentoring and sponsorship within organisations (Ragins, 1997; Thomas, 1990).
Networking research has predominantly been studied within sociology, where researchers typically use ‘social network analysis’ to map individuals’ contacts and examine the strength and structure of network relationships or ‘ties’. In a study of 448 MBA alumni, Seibert, Kraimer and Liden (2001) found that developing a range of less intense networking relationships (weak ties), and occupying network positions where unique information can be gained (structural holes), led to better relationships with those who were outside the direct work group and in higher organisational positions. These relationships then predicted access to privileged information, resources and career sponsorship. This in turn helped individuals to achieve enhanced salaries, promotions and career satisfaction, highlighting the importance of forming strategic network relationships for career success.
Ethnicity and Informal Networks
Minority-ethnic employees’ lack of progression to senior organisational levels has often been attributed to exclusion from social networks (Igbaria & Wormley, 1995; Morrison & von Glinow, 1990). The preference for homophily - the tendency for people to create ties with individuals who are ethnically similar - is repeatedly cited as a cause for minority-ethnic exclusion from informal networks (McPherson, Smith- Lovin, & Cook, 2001). A preference for homophily has several implications for differential career success. Because there are fewer minority-ethnic employees than
35
majority-ethnic employees in organisations, they have less opportunity to create ties with similar co-workers (Friedman, Kane, & Cornfield, 1998; McGuire, 2000). This means that their networks must have a wider range than their majority-ethnic counterparts, reaching beyond work areas and organisations (Murrell, Blake-Beard, Porter, & Perkins-Williamson, 2008). Whilst this may provide access to unique resources (Burt, 1998), their network contacts are less likely to be of high status, and therefore provide fewer career benefits (Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981).
Minority-ethnic employees in majority dominated organisations are therefore likely to experience a tension between their preference for homophily and their need for relationships that can enhance career success. Research has found that minority- ethnic employees who develop networks largely composed of majority-ethnic individuals are more successful (Brutus & Livers, 2000). Yet, there is a need to invest more time and effort creating and maintaining non-homophilous networks, whereas majority-ethnic employees benefit from ‘multiplex’ network ties, reinforced by both similarity and usefulness (Ibarra, 1993, 1995).
Ibarra (1993) suggests that non-homophilous networks are also more difficult to establish for minority-ethnic employees because they lack power and the career resources to offer in exchange, and are therefore less desirable network contacts. According to James (2000), majority-ethnic group members may also operate exclusionary practices, to protect their in-group, impeding access to networks for minority-ethnic groups. As a result, not only are majority network ties difficult to establish, but homophilous relationships may be induced, as a response to majority group exclusion, rather than by choice (McPherson et al., 2001).
Despite providing a useful insight into how informal processes within organisations influence the career success of minority-ethnic groups, network research has several shortcomings. Much of the research is cross-sectional, making it difficult to determine whether network composition leads to successful career outcomes, or whether individuals who are successful in their careers go on to form useful networks. There is also little known about other organisational influences such as organisational culture and climate for diversity that may influence network structure and behaviour. Whilst networking is one of the largest areas of career success
36
research to examine ethnicity in the workplace, very little is known about networking behaviour beyond broad group differences. There has been no research concerned with how minority-ethnic groups engage network ties, or whether they place the same importance on networking behaviour.
Mentoring
Mentoring is a second form of social capital and is often considered a form of developmental network relationship (Thomas, 1993). In the context of the workplace, mentoring has been defined as a relationship that enhances the personal and professional growth of a protégé or mentee (Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois, 2008). Traditionally, mentors are more experienced and senior individuals within the same organisation, and most research has focused on informal mentoring relationships (Ensher, Thomas, & Murphy, 2001). There is general agreement across the literature that, similar to informal network relationships, mentoring provides both career development (e.g. sponsorship, performance feedback) and psychosocial support (e.g. role modelling, friendship: Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004). Mentoring has been linked to enhanced career satisfaction, self-esteem, salary and promotion (Allen et al., 2004; Chao, 1997; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Scandura, 1992).
Mentoring and Ethnicity
Research on ethnicity and mentoring has demonstrated that minority-ethnic employees have no more difficulty gaining access to mentoring relationships than their majority-ethnic colleagues (Blake-Beard, 1999; Thomas, 1990). However, similar to findings in the networking literature, minority-ethnic employees may prefer to develop mentorships with racially similar others (Dreher & Cox, 1996). As well as greater interpersonal comfort, minority-ethnic mentees may prefer minority- ethnic mentors because they can provide them with strategies to overcome discrimination and prejudice in the workplace (Allen et al., 2005; Ragins, 1997).
Despite an apparent preference for same-race mentoring, the demographic composition of organisations means there is less opportunity for minority-ethnic employees to develop mentoring relationships with racially similar others,
37
particularly those of high status (Ragins, 1997; Ragins & Kram, 2007). This means that same-race mentorships are less likely to provide career related benefits (Dreher & Cox, 1996), and although they offer increased psychosocial functions, these have been found to be less relevant for extrinsic career success (Allen et al., 2004).
Cross-race mentoring can provide minority-ethnic mentees with the knowledge, resources and social capital provided by majority groups (Ragins, 2007a; Thomas, 1990). Dreher and Cox (1996) found that black MBA graduates who entered cross- race mentorships with a white mentor increased their annual compensation by approximately 11% more than those in same-race mentorships. Importantly, those mentees with female or minority ethnic mentors received no more compensation than those who went without a mentor. Yet, whilst cross-race mentoring may be more beneficial, minority-ethnic employees may be regarded as less desirable mentees, because their work is placed under greater scrutiny, they may be evaluated unfairly and perceived as less competent and therefore reflect badly on potential mentors (Ragins, 2002).
Although research suggests that cross-race mentoring may be more beneficial, if not more difficult to establish for minority-ethnic employees, the mentoring literature makes the assumption that same-race and cross-race relationships mean the same to all identity groups. White mentors and mentees are likely to experience organisations very differently to black mentors and mentees. Despite this, white-white relationships are often combined in the same category as black-black mentorships for analysis (e.g. Thomas, 1990). Therefore, research on the developmental needs of different groups is necessary. Nevertheless, mentoring research has, in comparison with other fields, been very progressive in terms of its attention to ethnicity and diversity. It has also demonstrated that an inability to gain equivalent outcomes as majority-ethnic mentees may well act as a barrier to career success for minority- ethnic mentees (Clutterbuck, Ragins, & Matthewman, 2002; Ragins & Kram, 2007).
38