Social Capital and HRD: Provocative Insights From Critical Management Studies

David ODonnell Claire Gubbins David McGuire Kenneth Mlbjerg Jrgensen Lars Bo Henriksen Thomas N. Garavan
The problem and the solution. This article initiates a critical management studies evaluation of social capital in an HRD context by drawing on insights from Foucault and Habermas.This article presents alternative interpretations of three seminal social capital conceptsweak ties, structural holes, and social resources. Pragmatic, albeit critical, insights for HRD theory and practice are illustrated to counterbalance the managerialist appropriation of social capital in pursuit of largely economic ends. It is argued here that social wellbeing is as relevant to HRD practice as economic well-being. Ethical dimensions are noted and avenues of reflexivity for HRD practitioners are suggested. Keywords: critical management studies (CMS); Foucault; Habermas; human resource development (HRD); social capital The purpose of this article is to suggest some alternative, albeit critical and at times provocative, interpretations of social capital in a human resource development (HRD) context. Social capital is understood roughly as the goodwill that is engendered by the fabric of social relations and which is capable of being mobilized to facilitate action (Adler & Kwon, 2002, p. 17). Critical interpretations of concepts associated with social capital, weak ties
This paper has benefited from discussion with participants at the 4th International Critical Management Studies Conference, University of Cambridge, in July 2005.We also wish to acknowledge very useful insights from the anonymous reviewers and Julia Storberg-Walker.The usual disclaimer applies. Advances in Developing Human Resources Vol. 9, No. 3 August 2007 413-435 DOI: 10.1177/1523422306304107 Copyright 2007 Sage Publications

414

Advances in Developing Human Resources

August 2007

(Granovetter, 1973), structural holes (Burt, 1992), and social resources (Lin, 2001) suggest many implications for future HRD theory and practice in this area. These are powerful concepts. We select these three not because we necessarily disagree with them or that we seek to debunk them; we address them because they are powerful, which raises the questions of how, and in whose interests, are they used in HRD research and practice? There is no simple answer, but our main purpose is to pose some relevant questions so as to encourage academic and practitioner reflexivity. To begin, we look into an encyclopedia that lists the classification of animals in the emperors domain:
They are classified according to the following categories: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) innumerable, (k) drawn with a fine camel hair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, and (n) that from a long way off look like flies. (Foucault, 1970, p. xv)

In her seminal paper on the relevance of Foucauldian analysis to human resource management (HRM), Townley (1993, p. 519) cited this extract from the introduction to The Order of Things (Foucault, 1970). She did this to emphasize the point that established ways of ordering are both enabling and limiting in terms of the type of analysis that can be conducted. Who we are and what we know largely determine what we look for, what we see or not see, and how we imagine the type of evidence that we seek in the first place (Henriksen, Nrreklit, Jrgensen, Christensen, & ODonnell, 2004). From the list of animals, one can ask: What is the purpose of a classification such as this? How does one use it? In whose interests has it been drawn up? The emperors? The animals themselves? And one can ask, why was this classification scheme created? Do we want to count these animals? Do we want to control and exploit their population densities? Do we want to train them? Do we want to eat them? Maybe we wish to simply become friendly with them? Perhaps it is our burning research-driven desire to ascertain precisely in minute detail that which makes those that from a long way off look like flies content, productive, and willing to grow and multiply in an environment free from unnecessary coercion, hardship, or exploitation? Now that we have, hopefully, appropriated some degree of perplexed attention from the reader, we address the purpose of this article in a little more detail. Substitute the word capital for animal and one could draw up another classification along the lines of: financial, human, live, dead, organizational, political, social, intellectual, emotional, intangible, structural, internal, external, relational, et cetera. Within each of these one could continue deeper in reductionist mode, classifying, naming and reaching ever-higher levels of dubious abstraction. Critical management studies (CMS) is emancipatory and strives to identify, expose, and remove relations of domination and exploitation that repress labor

ODonnell et al. / CMS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

415

without necessity (Willmott, 2005). Our purpose in addressing social capital in an HRD context from a CMS perspective is to encourage HRD practitioners and academics to become more reflexive on the history of their own concepts and methods, to understand how they themselves have had their identities formed by mainstream discourses, and to illuminate deeper insights into how social capital may be used in future HRD practice. CMS insights from Michel Foucault and Jrgen Habermas draw attention to the ethical dimension of social capital in HRD practice, to the centrality of power relations, and to the importance of social, as distinct from economic, well-being. As one cannot create social capital on ones own, the communicative relation between people is viewed in this article as the kernel of social capital creation. From this set of critical lenses we suggest some alternative interpretations of weak ties (Granovetter, 1973), structural holes (Burt, 1992), and social resources (Lin, 2001; Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981). We argue that the alternative visualizations presented have many implications for future social capitalrelated interventions in HRD practice. The structure of the remainder of this paper is as follows: First, we provide a brief introduction to the broad tenets of CMS. Some of the dominant currents underlying recent social capital discourse are then identified in general terms. Weak tie discourse is then challenged with some Habermasian insights. Foucault is then introduced to surface some hidden aspects of structural hole discourse. Next, the idea of social resource is used to focus attention on the issue of interests. Finally, some implications of adopting a CMS perspective on social capital for future HRD research and practice are identified in general terms. The article concludes with the suggestion that there is much value to be gained from further CMS-related work on social capital, which can contribute to a more humane form of human resource development.

Critical Management Studies (CMS)

The contemporary discourse on social capital is largely, if often implicitly, driven by the imperative of capital accumulation as distinct from the general social well-being of employees. Storberg-Walker (this issue) framed this as the economic perspective of social capital. The broad research questions relate to how social capital positively impacts on financial performance, on performativity in diverse fields, on career success, on achieving positions of influence, on gaining power, and so on at different levels of analysis (Brooks & Nafukho, 2006; Garavan, McGuire & ODonnell, 2004; Gubbins & Garavan, 2005; Jrgensen, 2007; ODonnell, McGuire, & Cross, 2006; Storberg, 2002). Within the HRD field, recent debates have focused on whether performance or learning is the dominant driver (Barrie & Pace, 1998; Kuchinke, 1998); whether HRD has an utilitarian or developmental focus (Garavan & McGuire, 2001; Holms, 1995); and whether the field veers toward authenticity or social engineering (Grieves, 2000).

416

Advances in Developing Human Resources

August 2007

Much of the general research has concluded that the emphasis is predominantly means-end instrumental/strategic (Adler & Kwon, 2002). This applies whether one evaluates the instrumental value of a weak tie, the instrumental political benefits of leveraging oneself into a structural hole position, or totting up the instrumental value of the social resources within ones proprietary network of relations. From a CMS perspective, the key question is: how are these three highly influential social capital concepts to be used in future HRD practice? In Habermasian (1984, 1987a) terms, such discourse is largely driven by the instrumental dictates of the dominant steering systems of money and power; following Foucault (1980), such discourse is steeped in power. At a fundamental level, social is of the lifeworld of human beings, whether in organizations or not. The lifeworld refers to the mundane everyday reality around here. The rationality of the human lifeworld is communicative; it is not solely means-end instrumental or strategic. The core lifeworld idea of the comfort zone of knowing that if ones child becomes lost down the street that some neighbor will bring her home (Coleman, 1988) appears to have been further lost in the rush to colonize more lifeworld processes in the interests of the capital wing of the capitallabor relation. A CMS perspective can remind HRD researchers and practitioners that the lost child down the street continues to exist and that those that from a long way off look like flies, the apparent lens of far too much managerialist discourse, might actually be real, live human beings. In doing so, we draw attention to the possibilities of CMS in informing HRD research and practice. We emphasize that the CMS lens is not just about theory but demands action (Adler, 2002). To be of any practical use it demands application in HRD practicea real challenge for HRD academics and practitioners who have been socialized in, and must meet the demands of, the classifications within the conventional managerialist encyclopedia. One could say that the purpose of CMS is to make a difference for the better for those that from a long way off look like flies. Opposed to the narrow instrumental focus of much, if not all, mainstream work, CMS broadly includes much of the late and critical modernism emanating from the Frankfurt School tradition (writers such as Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse and, more recently, Habermas, Beck, and Honneth); much of other neo- and post-Marxism; feminism; and what has come to be known as postmodernist or dialogic (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000) theorists such as Wittgenstein, Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, and others. Often in opposition on many points, there is an agreed assumption on the importance of language following the linguistic turn, a strong partiality for interpretive methods, and skepticism toward universalism and grand narratives (ODonnell, 2007). Both critical theory and dialogic approaches draw on four specific developments in Western thought: (i) the powerknowledge relation arising from Nietzsches perspectivalism; (ii) a nondualistic constructionist account of experience and language arising from phenomenological hermeneutics and

ODonnell et al. / CMS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

417

structural linguistics; (iii) a historically based social conflict theory arising from Marx; and (iv) a complex human subject arising from Freud (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000, p. 81). In terms of power/knowledge, Foucault is a leading dialogic theorist; in terms of Frankfurt School critical theory, Habermas provides an affirmative agenda that makes room for human agency and is specifically based on the social. What these two approaches have in common with the managerialist approach is that each can be addressed from a relational perspective. Unsurprisingly, there are substantive differences in terms of epistemology, ontology, and method. Managerialist discourse is largely individualist and quantitative research dominates. Foucault dispenses with the individual entirely and addresses relations of power/knowledge, discipline, discursive formations, and governmentality. Habermas also dispenses with methodological individualism in moving to address communicative action and the relations between individuals as his point of theoretical departure. Both Foucauldian and Habermasian approaches demand qualitative research, whereas typical managerialist approaches require quantitative research. We, therefore, do not attempt any nave logical synthesis here due to the vastly different nature of these three worldviews. We merely attempt to illustrate pragmatic, albeit critical, insights to counterbalance the recent managerialist appropriation of the social capital concept. Social capital is fundamentally a potentially healthy lifeworld process as distinct from a latently strategic instrumental tool of capital accumulation. Emphasis is placed on the more constructive/productive features of Foucauldian and Habermasian approaches. Foucault encourages reflexivity in HRD practitioners by using history to demonstrate how social capital discourse is used and how their own professional HRD identities have been formed. Habermas suggests criteria for an ethical way of using social capital. Both, albeit from different wings of the CMS agenda, provide ethical projects.

Social Capital
What is social capital? Following Wittgenstein (1953/2001), it is whatever it is constructed to be and how it is used in everyday HRD practice. The meaning of a word, according to Wittgensteins (1953/2001) philosophy of language, is how it is used in particular contexts. In the history of social capital, four archetypical concepts have dominated the development of norms and traditions of practice. One dominating concept focused on the characteristics of relations an actor maintains with other actors (Coleman, 1988, 1990; Fukuyama, 1995; Granovetter, 1973, 1985; Putnam, 2000). Other concepts include focusing only on the structure of relations among actors in a network (Burt, 1992, 1997); the structure with embedded resources possessed by the actors in a network (Lin, 2001; Lin et al., 1981); or combinations of all three: the resources, structure, and characteristics of a network of actors (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001), the institutions, relationships and norms that shape

418

Advances in Developing Human Resources

August 2007

the quality and quantity of a societys social interactions to enable people to coordinate action to achieve desired goals (World Bank, 1999). Definitions, as illustrated by the emperors list earlier, name and divide and distinguish one thing from another; CMS suggests that the process of defining is not value neutral. A CMS perspective on definitions, viewed as a universalist obsession of objectivism, examines how they focus on a range of dualisms that are further contingent on levels of analysis. For the concept of social capital, the range includes internal or external relations (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Oh, Kilduff, & Brass, 1999), macro- or microdimensions, public- or private-good evaluations, ties or resources, and so on. The external or bridging view focuses primarily on social capital as a resource embedded in the social network tying ego to other actors external to the collectivity. The internal or bonding view focuses on the internal ties of a given collectivity (organization, community, and nation) and especially on those features that instil cohesiveness. At the macrolevel, social capital is considered an attribute of nations (World Bank, 1999), geographic regions (Fukuyama, 1995), or communities (Putnam, 1993, 1995). At the microlevel, it is defined in terms of individual networks (Burt, 1992), individual actors (Belliveau, OReilly, & Wade, 1996; Portes & Sensenbrenner, 1993), and firms and their interactions with other firms (Baker, 1990). Public-good theorists emphasize the secondary nature of individual benefits (Coleman, 1990; Fukuyama, 1995). Private-good theorists focus explicitly on the individual and her accrued social assets, such as prestige, educational credentials, and social club memberships (Belliveau et al., 1997; Lin et al., 1981). Yet another distinction is made between social ties and social resources. Social capital comprises the beneficial resources actors draw from their social networks rather than the relationships that constitute such social networks (Leenders & Gabbay, 1999). Conversely, the aspects of social structure and social relationships that are potentially valuable through their provision of beneficial resources are also forms of social capital (Sandefur, Laumann, & Heinz, 1999). Burt (1992) strongly responds that social capital is at once the resources that contacts hold and the structure of contacts in a networkthe resources describe who you reach and the structure describes how you reach. Although social capital is deemed to increase efficiency of action (Hoffman, Hoelscher, & Sherif, 2005) and to be subject to human resource interventions (Storberg, 2002), considerable disagreement exists regarding its antecedents: motivation (Portes, 1998), norms (Putnam, 1993), trust (Leana & van Buren, 1999; Putnam, 1993), associability and ability (Leana & van Buren, 1999), and others. Yet its precise composition remains as yet unclear (Adler & Kwon, 2002). Although social capital may assist some individuals, such a network of relations may lead to the maintenance of inequality for others (Lin, 2001; Loury, 1992). While enabling some it may constrain others in terms of positioning, exclusion, blacklisting, the fear of alienation

ODonnell et al. / CMS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

419

(Tymon & Stumpf, 2003; Wakefield & Poland, 2005), labeling the present authors as heterodox CMS theorists, and more. As the emperor might put it, were he to read such an entry in his encyclopedia, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Whatever ones definition (and CMS is always skeptical of essentialist definitions of anything), the CMS perspective asserts that no form of capital, social or otherwise, may be constructed without human beings. From the mainstream essentialism of what is? the question for CMS theorists and practitioners is how is? (Henriksen et al., 2004). How is social capital is examined here by bringing critical insights from Habermas and Foucault into the discussion.

Weak Tie or Strong Tie? Insights From the Lifeworld

Granovetter (1973) explains how people internal to an organization or a friendship group become connected through weak ties to external organizations or other circles. People in a social group have two types of ties to others within and external to the group. Strong ties are likely to exist between two individuals within the social group; these are emotionally intense, frequent, and involve multiple types of relationships, such as those with family, friends, advisors, and co-workers. In many ways we see affinities here with communicative relations within a lifeworldthe Habermasian (1984) communicative relation, of its nature, is a very strong relation. The Theory of Communicative Action (Habermas, 1984, 1987a) provides useful critical insights into theory building on social capital as well as some guidance on pragmatic HRD practice (Henriksen et al., 2004; ODonnell, 1999, 2004, 2007). The architectonic of lifeworld and system goes hand-inhand with the methodological approaches of understanding and observation. The point of theoretical departure for Habermas is the communicative relation between peoplethe set of symmetric and reciprocal relations presupposed in communicative action.
Communicative action refers to the interaction of at least two subjects capable of speech and action who establish interpersonal relations (whether by verbal or extra-verbal means). The actors seek to reach an understanding about the action situation and their plans of action in order to coordinate their actions by way of agreement. (Habermas, 1984, p. 86)

Analyzing language use oriented toward reaching mutual understanding from the research perspective of participants themselves provides the key to the entire web of lifeworld practices because all symbolic structures of the lifeworld are differentiated through the medium of language (Habermas, 2003, p. 17). Similar to intellectual capital (ODonnell, 2004), the communicative relation between people may be viewed as the site, the process and the content through which much of social capital is created; one cannot create social capital on ones own. The dialogic validity claims within the communicative relation, and the constraints under which they stand, are substantive

420

Advances in Developing Human Resources

August 2007

and real social phenomena that are open to empirical investigation. Every elementary speech act can be connected with validity claims related to the objective, social, and subjective worlds, and accepted as valid or rejected as invalid. Ego can explicitly (or implicitly and silently) state yes or no to alter. Such dialogue does not occur in an abstract vacuum; the content of the communicative relation (whose procedures are probably the only universal acceptable in CMS, if not in all of CMS), is always contextual (ODonnell, 2004). The instrumental/strategic rationalities of the dominant systems of money and power are geared to profit maximization, efficiency, performativity, control, or market share; traditional managerialist imperatives. In contrast, the communicative rationality of the human organizational-lifeworld (see Figure 1; negative outcomes in parentheses), grounded in the communicative relation, is geared to understanding and agreement (Habermas, 1987a, 1987b) including the processes, however argumentative or otherwise, of reaching such agreement (ODonnell, 2004). In terms of the healthy functioning of an organizational-lifeworld and the general well-being of its employees, research can be conducted in terms of rationality of knowledge, member solidarity, and personal/group responsibility. The validity claims of comprehensibility, objective truthfulness or efficiency, normative rightness, and sincerity provide

FIGURE 1: Contours of an Organizational-Lifeworld Source: ODonnell and Henriksen (2002, p. 95).

ODonnell et al. / CMS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

421

empirical entry points for such research and are particularly suited to interpretive case study and ethnographic approaches (see Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Forester, 1992; Henriksen et al., 2004; ODonnell, 1999, 2004; ODonnell & Henriksen, 2002; Samra-Fredericks, 2000, 2003; Willmott, 2005). Observe the organizational-lifeworld in Figure 1; HRD interventions related to social capital can be expected to impact many, if perhaps not all, aspects of such lifeworlds. Lifeworlds, according to Habermas (1987a) can be conceived of as culturally transmitted and linguistically organised stock(s) of interpretative patterns (p. 124). The three structures of the lifeworld (culture, community, selves) are reproduced through three ongoing processescultural reproduction within an organization, the social integration of organizational members, and the forms of socialization that take place. HRD practitioners, at different times, may be involved in all three processes. Viewing both the three reproduction processes and the three lifeworld structures, we see here the central importance of strong ties to all processes of preserving healthy organizational cultures, communities, and employee identities. All may be subject to HRD interventions for good or ill. The purpose of including Figure 1 here is to emphasize that all nine elements of the organizational-lifeworld matrix, where a reproduction process impacts on a lifeworld structure, demand strong ties with significant others. The dominant managerialist discourse on social capital notes the contingent nature of the strongweak distinction, but most tends to privilege the weak tie and somewhat disparages discussion on the value of strong ties. It is beyond the scope of the present article to discuss each of these elements in any detail here or their corresponding structural components or reproduction processes (see ODonnell, 2004; ODonnell & Henriksen, 2002). For illustrative purposes, we focus on one element where forms of socialization, key to HRD practice, impact employee identity (see element 3.3 of Figure 1). From a CMS perspective, managers, including HRD managers, may attempt to influence individual employee identity in order to: (a) achieve organizational control; (b) create an internal, organizational base for image management; (c) secure loyalty; and (d) counteract existential uncertainty through building self-confidence and self-esteem at work (Alvesson, 2004). Issues of identity are of central interest for HRD practitioners in terms of how they themselves are constructed and how their own initiatives related to social capital impact on developing and/or regulating employee identities.
Identity is a central dimension of control in work that provides considerable space for employees to act based on their own understanding. [. . .] When hierarchical and technical means cannot prescribe behavior in detail owing to the complexity and organic nature of the work tasks, the self-image and social group(s) through which the worker defines himself or herself take on great significance. Construction and activation processes of identities are therefore themes of great relevance. (Alvesson, 2004, pp. 191-192)

Social capital has now entered the HRD discourse, and HRD practitioners can be expected in future work to participate in identity regulation of

422

Advances in Developing Human Resources

August 2007

employees through emphasis on networks, weak ties, and structural holes. Kessels and Poell (2004), for example, link social capital theory to a discussion on andragogy and the importance of identity, if not identity regulation, in the processes of social capital formation and knowledge management. The key to identity regulation is the set of discursive practices concerned with identity definition that condition processes of identity formation and transformation (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002). Weak ties exist between any member of a social group and an individual external to the group, in another lifeworld so to speak; they are not as emotionally intense, are infrequent, and restricted to one narrow type of relationship (Granovetter, 1973). Weak ties, from a Habermasian perspective, are not really grounded in communicative rationality but in a narrow instrumental and overtly strategic sense. One cannot rely on a set of weak ties, for example, to bring ones child home if she rambles down the street. Nor can one depend on a set of weak ties to construct a healthy sense of personal identity (element 3.3 in Figure 1), which demands strong ties within ones organizational-lifeworld. That said, the characteristics of the strength of ties predict a number of outcomes. Weak ties enable ego to reach beyond her small well-defined social circle to make connections with parts of the internal and external social structure not directly accessible. An individual with weak ties to members of other social groups, whose members are more likely to have dissimilar attributes to her own, has access to potentially novel and nonredundant information, ideas, influences, and resources (Granovetter, 1973). The instrumental focus here is explicit. This instrumental focus on weak ties is now regularly translated into discussion of the strong tieits aspect of communicative rationality, which is essential to healthy human functioning and the development of a sense of well-being is downplayed. It is argued that strong ties increase the likelihood that egos other contacts, friends, and colleagues will be introduced to one another and result in overlapping networks (Granovetter, 1973). Thus, any information/knowledge possessed within a social groupand thus between these individuals more likely to have similar attributes and strong ties to one another as in local organizational-lifeworldsis likely to be available to all members of the group, shared quickly, and likely to be redundant. Redundant is a negative term because the focus again is purely on narrow instrumental aspects; the communicative aspects of strong tie relations and their centrality in maintaining the health and integrity of diverse lifeworlds and their members is not really addressedif not completely silenced it is backgrounded and certainly downgraded. Strong ties in cohesive groups are viewed as less conducive to carrying novel information/knowledge than weak ties, yet they are more effective at reinforcing cohesion and trustworthy behavior in any social group. Granovetter (1973) explicitly notes that more intensive dyadic interaction ultimately leads to the formation of a dense close-knit network in which most members

ODonnell et al. / CMS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

423

directly interact with one another, whereas weak dyadic ties produce a looseknit network in which many of its members do not interact directly with one another. The difference in rationalities is very apparent here. A highly cohesive network becomes self-sufficient and increasingly isolated and the network or group becomes more or less closed to outsiders thus making the boundary between members and nonmembers more rigid. Yet this is what families are, this is the clan, this is the group of longstanding friends, this is the organizational team, this is the effective design group, this is the source of a healthy sense of personal well-being, and this is what brings the lost child back home. What are the implications for practice here? Habermas can be used to challenge the privileging of the weak tie in much, certainly not all, mainstream discourse in order to emphasize the central importance of strong ties to the healthy functioning of an organizational lifeworld and, more importantly, of its employees. This in no way refutes the basic tenets of Granovetters seminal workit simply draws more attention to the ethical value of the communicative rationality within strong ties as compared to the narrow instrumental/ strategic focus within weak ties that tend to dominate social capital discourse in the interests of capital accumulation. The reminder to HRD research and practice is that it is fundamental to human health and a positive sense of personal identity and well-being to belongand it is impossible to belong in a world or an organization constituted solely of weak ties.

Structural Holes: From Who and Where to How?

Burt (1992) cogently argues that a structural hole approach addresses the bridging concept of social ties more directly than a weak tie approach. The fundamental conceptual difference between the two relates to the distinction between tie strength and the existence of ties. A structural hole exists between two individuals who are not connected to each other and who circulate in different flows of information or knowledge or influence. If, in general, information or knowledge circulates more within than between groups, then a key source of social capital is a network of ties characterized by many structural holes or linkages to groups not otherwise connected. An individual who spans the structural hole has access to the information or knowledge flowing in the social circles on both sides of the hole. This individual, who creates the bridge between otherwise disconnected contacts, acts as a broker and has a say in whose interests are served by the bridge as the disconnected contacts communicate through the individual (Burt, 1997) who commands the space. Thus, in addition to information benefits, structural holes yield power, influence, and control benefits. The argument that structural holes yield power and control benefits (Burt, 1992) is based on Simmels (1922/1955) idea of the tertius gaudens, the third who benefits, in which individuals who bridge structural holes have an opportunity to play the two disconnected contacts against each other so as to achieve their own goals. This is social strategic action; it is means-end instrumental to

424

Advances in Developing Human Resources

August 2007

the core. Structural holes benefit their inhabitants in three ways: First, they provide them with access to information, which is not available to others in their networks thus acquiring a competitive advantage over others because of this additional information (Johanson, 2000). Second, they obtain information more quickly than others do (Burt, 1992). Third, structural holes provide control benefits (Burt, 1992). Maintaining redundant ties is expensive in terms of resources such as time and attention (Burt, 1992); a network composed of nonredundant ties makes better use of scarce resources and is more efficient in terms of timing, access, and information benefits. Access to valuable and timely information/knowledge, power, influence, and control are central themes here. These are most eminently testable within the dominant paradigm using sophisticated quantitative statistical techniques on those essentialist beings that from a long way off look like flies; people in other words. Whereas an overreliance on weak tie theory could have some employees spending less time on their strong ties to the possible detriment of their local lifeworlds and internal organizational friendships, in seeking out weak ties from which they might expect some instrumental gain, the focus now shifts to finding and fitting into those valuable structural holes. Identifying, staking a claim, and protecting the space becomes the new game in town. Burt (1992) brings power strikingly to the fore in both theory and method. There are issues here related to identity construction and power providing an avenue to introduce some insights from Foucault. Foucauldian analysis demands minute, richly descriptive, co-creative qualitative empirical work (Henriksen et al., 2004; Jorgensen, 2007). This is not possible in this article, hence the inclusion below of a fictional and somewhat extreme futuristic narrative on Georges dilemma for illustrative purposes in the following analysis.
George appears somewhat anxious todaylets switch on the mind reader: Question 5 on the most recent Personnel Evaluation Review relates to the number of structural holes I occupy within the corporate network; and I hear that HRD have now started analyzing all the email communications and phone records with this new software to identify those who are network challenged; imagine the shame of replying zero to such a question or the damage to my career prospects of being identified as an outlier, an internal solitary with only one, only one, strong tie and with not a single weak tie in any of the adjoining departments according to the most recent departmental network analysis. And I attended the training day on social capital and networks that HRD put on recently. What, Oh what am I going to do? The fact that I do excellent work doesnt seem to matter any more. Please, please, please will someone tell me where I can find a structural hole by next Fridays evaluation. I wonder would anyone in my community affairs group know? Ill ask a few of them at tonights meeting after I get homethey have never let me down yet. Im lucky that Jean tipped me off. Ill see her at tonights meeting as well. [mind reader switched off 11.53 03-13-2007, operator HRD6739]

Returning to the issue of HRD influence on identity construction noted earlier, Giddens (1991) conceptualizes self-identity as a reflexively organized narrative, derived from participation in competing discourses and various experiences that is productive of a degree of existential continuity and security (p. 53), or, as in Georges case, related to social capital and future HRD

ODonnell et al. / CMS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

425

interventions, insecurity, and perhaps an element of psychopathology as in element 3.3 of Figure 1. In her application of a Foucauldian analysis to HRM, Townley (1993, p. 520) notes the uniqueness of Foucaults ideas on power, knowledge, and subjectivity. In particular she notes his:
[D]esire to understand more fully power relations, that is, how mechanisms of power affect everyday lives. His work is critical of views of power that depict it as a commodity (something held or possessed; something embodied in a person, institution, or structure; something to be used for organizational or individual purposes). . . . Power is not something that is acquired, seized or shared, something one holds onto or allows to slip away (Foucault, 1981, p. 94). Rather, power is relational; it becomes apparent when it is exercised. Because of this relational aspect, power is not associated with a particular institution, but with practices, techniques and procedures. Power is employed at all levels and through many dimensions. Denying the concept of power as a commodity has implications for the way it is studied. Thus, questions such as who has power? or where, or in what, does power reside? are changed to what Foucault termed the how of power: those practices, techniques, and procedures that give it effect. He also offered a different understanding of power as, for example, in the political dimensions of visibility (rendering something or someone visible) power is exercised by virtue of things being known and people being seen. (Foucault, 1980, p. 154)

If power is something that cannot be acquired, seized or shared, Foucaults (1980) worldview, then this represents a real challenge to the idea of structural holes. This insight is included here to remind HRD academics and practitioners that there are different world views, including the emperors noted in the introduction, and that there may be benefits in taking alternative perspectives on social capital discourses. There are many implications for research method and future HRD practice in adopting a Foucauldian view of power. The purpose of power analysis is to bring the taken-for-granted into discussion; following Foucault this demands an exploration and opening up of everyday life (Jrgensen, 2004, 2006, 2007). Power/knowledge and mode of governmentality are linked. Governmentality is a reference to those processes through which objects are rendered amenable to intervention and regulation by being formulated in a particular conceptual way (Townley, 1993, p. 520). The traditional distinction between power and knowledge is dissolved; they are coterminous. Power is not negative here, but creative: the individual is no longer simply givenbut a historical creation constituted through power/knowledge. Power resides in the discursive formation itselfthe combination of a set of linguistic distinctions, ways of reasoning and material practices that together organize social institutions and produce particular forms of subjects (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000, p. 104)such as George. A Foucauldian power/knowledge view on social capital and on how social capital is used in HRD practice might identify aspects of everyday practice not available from Burts (1992) more objectivist approach. The mere fact of theoretical, epistemological, and methodological friction and opposition is capable of generating critical insight. The essentialist individual as the unit of analysis is immediately challengedrather the development of [HRD] experts and [HRD] knowledge is

426

Advances in Developing Human Resources

August 2007

a way of determining and subordinating employees (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000, p. 104; Townley, 1993). This imposed knowledge in turn may be used by employees to engage in self-surveillance, self-discipline, and self-molding toward the demanded norms (see Deetz, 1995) as in Georges frantic, albeit in this case fictional, seeking of a structural hole for the purposes of satisfying an HR performance appraisal following socialization on an HRD-initiated social networking training program. These processes of identity formation are not available from an externalist objectivist perspective; the mirror of nature (Rorty, 1979) does not suffice here. The external objectivist, unlike Georges fictional observer noted earlier, does not possess a mind reader. Again, detailed, in-depth, qualitative dialogic work with both HRD professionals and employees such as George is the preferred research method to discern how HRD interventions related to social capital are used now and most probably will be used in the future. Returning to Georges illustrative dilemma, one could claim that the HRD practice, procedure, or technique of including reference to structural holes, weak ties, and network analysis in both HRD programs and HR appraisal is actually constituting Georges identity, who in turn is engaging in forms of self-discipline to fit the one-sided social capital discursive formationwhich is making him ill. This, of course, applies not only to social capital but to all procedures, techniques, and practices within the HRD arena. The mind reader is a metaphor for objectivism, the use of math and statistical analysis to control reified human beings or resources at a distance; both the Habermasian and Foucauldian methods demand that one talk to people like George to really find out what they think and how they are. Perhaps Georges solitary nature in the workplace, his extant self-identity, could be explicitly recognized in his personal development planning and during the appraisal interview; his excellent work could be foregrounded. The fact that networking at work is not one of Georges strengths could be explicitly accepted and he could be informed by an astute HRD professional, who is herself reflexively aware of her ethical role in employee identity formation and regulation, that he is not expected to bring himself to a state of stressful anxiety before his next appraisal in seeking out weak ties or structural holes. As to what one could do with the mind readerwe leave that element of our fictional, if extremist, vignette in the capable hands of the reader. The separation of knowledge from power in Burts (1992) work and its epistemology of possession is further challenged. This demands a research methodological move to an epistemology of practice (Cook & Brown, 1999) and more in-depth dialogic research approaches on the techniques, practices, and procedures that give it effect (see Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Henriksen et al., 2004; Jrgensen, 2004, 2007). From who, what, where, and how many, we have arrived at the question of how? The challenge to HRD practitioners is to reflect on how they themselves have had their identities shaped by the social capital discursive formations and how their future social capitalrelated HRD

ODonnell et al. / CMS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

427

interventions impact on the identities and general well-being of employees. As the George scenario illustratessocial well-being is as important as economic well-being; social action is as important as economic action. Moreover, HRD practitioners need to examine the effect of work-based individual development, career development, and organizational development interventions on the establishment and shape of informal networks and on the character and values of the collective (Brooks & Nafukho, 2006). Increasing levels of internationalization in HR dictate that culture be included as a variable here (Peltonen, 2006). Cross-cultural indoctrination processes may lead to standardization of organizational practices (including HRD practices), but may lead to the breakdown of traditional community and national identities (McGuire, ODonnell, Garavan, Saha, & Murphy, 2001). As HRD practitioners begin to incorporate insights from social capital discourse into such development programs, the extreme nature of Georges dilemma points, once again, to the danger of privileging economic aims over social well-being in HRD practice.

Social Capital Resources: In Whose Interests?

In contrast to much managerialist discourse, Lin (2001) explicitly noted that social capital also perpetuates inequality. His work on stratification acknowledges that desired resources are not distributed equitably and he convincingly argues that the resources embedded in social structures prevent mobilization of others up the hierarchy. In an earlier work, Lin, Ensel, and Vaughn (1981) focused on the social resources embedded in an individuals social networkthe wealth, status, power as well as social ties of those persons who are directly or indirectly linked to the individual (p. 395). Whereas personal resources involve an individuals wealth, status, and power (Sorensen, 1977), social resources are embedded in the positions of contacts that individuals reach through their social networks. An individual who possesses characteristics or controls resources related to the attainment of the focal individuals goals is considered a social resource, and an individual with access to better social resources will obtain better outcomes in instrumental/strategic action (Lin, 1982; Lin et al., 1981). That said, wealth, status, and power are the resources again in question here. Final CMS questions addressed here are: In whose interests (Habermas, 1984, 1987a)? How is the power in the discursive formation (Foucault, 1980)? And, following Adler and Kwon (2002), mobilized in support of what type of action? From an individual perspective, this is instrumental/strategic action; from an organizational perspective, this is instrumental/strategic action. This is economics and fits well within economic theory, which is based on instrumental action and individual or organizational self-interest. The social has been appropriated to the economic. How is social? The social is as lost as the child down the street; this is the danger for HRD practice that we once again highlight here.

428

Advances in Developing Human Resources

August 2007

FIGURE 2: Types of Action Source: Habermas (1984, p. 285).

Human action can be divided into two broad categories: action oriented to success, which is the idea of rationality dominant in economics, organization theory, and very much of social capital theory; and communicative action, which is aimed at gaining intersubjective understanding (Figure 2). Action oriented to success (teleological action or goal directed action) can be divided into two distinct subcategories, namely, individual instrumental action and social strategic action. Whereas weak tie and structural hole approaches focus on the structure of relations, social resource approaches focuses on the content of those relations. All three, to a large extent, would appear to fit within the instrumental/strategic action orientations shown in Figure 2. Perhaps one could refer to the discourse more precisely as social strategic capital (George trying to fit into the discursive formation of social capital at work) to bring out the accurate meaning of the word strategic; to more clearly delineate how the power of the social capital discursive formation may act; and to more clearly surface the neglect of the communicative action orientation to understanding that is also social and rational, that is, social communicative capital, (George at home, in his community, and with his co-worker Jean, a friend from the organizational-lifeworld as distinct from the other end of a reified strong tie), to highlight the ethical danger of neglecting the latter in future HRD practice related to social capital. The genuinely social action orientation of the human lifeworld oriented to reaching understanding, organizational or otherwise, appears to have been largely lost. Social capital theory is only one-sidedly social. Colemans (1988) original example of the child lost down the street appears to have, well, become lost. It is argued strongly here that such insights are central to human wellbeing, to the well-being of organizational members, and to the well-being of organizations, communities, and societies. Drawing on insights from Foucault and Habermas, the entire range of social action is brought back into social capital discourse. Social well-being is as important as economic well-being.

Implications and Conclusion

In this article three highly influential, powerful, and sophisticated social capital concepts were addressed from a critical perspective. We outlined, if

ODonnell et al. / CMS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

429

briefly and tentatively, some of the possibilities of CMS in informing future HRD theory, research, and practice in this area. We drew mainly on some illustrative insights from the massive oeuvres of Foucault and Habermas in terms of theory and to the work of Alvesson and Deetz (2000) on critical research methodology. From this set of critical lenses we suggested some alternative interpretations of weak ties (Granovetter, 1973), structural holes (Burt, 1992), and social resources (Lin, 2001; Lin et al., 1981). These types of interpretations or alternative visualizations have many implications for future social capitalrelated interventions in HRD practice. It is acknowledged here that there is much that is valuable within mainstream discourse; weak tie, structural hole, and social resource are exemplars of powerful theoretical constructions. Economic value is increasingly created through social networks, and networks can be instrumental in solving both long- and short-term problems (Putnam, 1993, 1995). The individual and the collective are mutually interdependent and individuals access to networks does critically affect their performance and effectiveness (Cunningham, 2002). Informal networks arguably provide a more effective vehicle for getting work done than traditional organizational hierarchies (Cross & Prusak, 2002). These insights, however, are substantively discussed in the other contributions to this special issue. Acknowledging that HRM and HRD are subservient to the dictates of capital within the capitallabor relation (ODonnell et al., 2006), or within the psychological contract, social capital theory demands a focus that is broader than the purely economic. Positioning social capital theory within the broad managerialist discursive formation perhaps helps in explaining how the social strategic wing has come to so overwhelmingly dominate the social communicative wing of social capital. In terms of critical reflexivity, the work of Foucault (1980) demands that HRD practitioners reflect on how their own identities and roles as HRD practitioners have been constructed by power/ knowledge, and the relevant discursive formations. A careful reading of Townley (1993) provides an instructive introduction here. Further reflexivity demands a reappraisal of ones HRD role in controlling and constructing employee identitiesthis demands a move away from the so-called objectivist distance in viewing essentialist employees far off out there. Following Habermas (1984), we note the danger of downplaying strong ties, central to communicative action and central to the healthy functioning of any organizational-lifeworld and its members. We further note the distinction between instrumental/strategic action and communicative action and the fact that the former tends to dominate discourse on social capital. Of its nature, the purpose of organization is instrumental/strategic; but human beings cannot be defined solely in terms of instrumental or strategic actionthis is the insight for future HRD practice here and it is profoundly ethical. Most centrally, the work of Habermas (1987a) highlights the question of interests. When considering social capitalrelated HRD interventions, the focus appears to be

430

Advances in Developing Human Resources

August 2007

primarily on the economic interests of capital, but there is no capital without labor. This insight demands that the enlightened HRD practitioner attempts to balance or perhaps cope with the dialectical tensions between capital/labor and strategic/communicative forms of action in any future social capital intervention. This insight is hidden in the more unitarist discourse on the psychological contract. There is no universal answer here that can be expressed in the neat mathematical formulae of network analysiscontext, experience, money, power, power/knowledge, mode of governmentality, history, tradition, time, place, and the vicariousness of chance all come into play. Yet, CMS demands action; critical theory without some applications in practice is simply wasted abstraction. HRD practitioners who begin to take on board such insights might begin to ask questions such as: How am I as a HRD practitioner being constructed by the dominant mainstream discursive formation (weak ties, structural holes, exploit social resources for organizational benefit)? How will this impact on how I introduce social capitalrelated HRD interventions in future practice? What effect will these have on employees? In terms of research method, there is an urgent need for more in-depth dialogic interpretive case study and ethnographic research approaches on the HRD techniques, practices, and procedures that give effect to social capital (on Foucauldian analysis, see Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Henriksen et al., 2004; Jrgensen, 2004, 2007; on Habermasian analysis, see Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Forester, 1992; Henriksen et al., 2004; Kessels & Poell, 2004; ODonnell, 1999, 2004, 2007; ODonnell & Henriksen, 2002; Samra-Fredericks, 2000, 2003; Willmott, 2005). We began with the metaphor of the emperors encyclopedia. In our travels through the social capital field we found a lost child, an apparently very lost and very neglected social communicative child, and we brought her home where she is rightfully the center of attention. On our way back and gazing into the distance it gradually dawned on us that those that from a long way off look like flies in the emperors discursive formation were actually real, live human beings capable of individual instrumental action, social strategic action, and social communicative action. We conclude that social well-being is as relevant to HRD practice as economic well-being; social action as important as economic action. From a CMS perspective on social capital, this is all we are trying to say. There is much more that can be said, and done, by drawing on this CMS perspective on social capital in future work in the HRD field.

References
Adler, P. (2002). Critical in the name of whom and what? Organization, 9(3), 387395. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 1740. Alvesson, M. (2004). Knowledge work and knowledge intensive firms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage.

ODonnell et al. / CMS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

431

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5): 619644. Baker, W. E. (1990). Market networks and corporate behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 96(3), 589625. Barrie, J., & Pace, R. W. (1998). Learning for organizational effectiveness: Philosophy of education and human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(1), 3954. Belliveau, M. A., OReilly, C. A. I., & Wade, J. B. (1996). Social capital at the top: Effects of social similarity and status on CEO compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 15681593. Brooks, K., & Nafukho, F. M. (2006). Human resource development, social capital, emotional intelligence: Any link to productivity? Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(2), 117128. 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. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl. Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure), S95-S120. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381400. Cross, R., & Prusak, L. (2002). The people who make organizations go or stop. Harvard Business Review, 80(6), 104111. Cunningham, I. (2002). Developing human and social capital in organisations. Industrial and Commercial Training, 34(3), 8994. Deetz, S. (1995) Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsible and responsive workplaces. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Forester, J. (1992). Critical ethnography: on fieldwork in a Habermasian way. In M. Alvesson & H. Willmott (Eds.), Critical management studies. London: Sage. Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of human sciences. London: Tavistock. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings by Michel Foucault, 197277 (C. Gordon, Ed.). Brighton, UK: Harvester. Foucault, M. (1981). The history of sexuality: Vol. 1. The will to knowledge. London: Penguin. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press. Garavan, T. N., & McGuire, D. (2001). Competencies and workplace learning: Some reflections on the rhetoric and the reality. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(4), 144164. Garavan, T. N., McGuire, D., & ODonnell, D. (2004). Exploring human resource development: A levels of analysis approach. Human Resource Development Review, 3(4), 417441.

432

Advances in Developing Human Resources

August 2007

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the later modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 13601380. Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481510. Grieves, J. (2000). Navigating change into the new millennium: Themes and issues for the learning organization. The Learning Organisation, 7(2), 5474. Gubbins, M. C., & Garavan, T. N. (2005). Studying HRD practitioners: A social capital model. Human Resource Development Review, 4(2), 189218. Habermas, J. (1984) The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society, Vol. 1. (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, J. (1987a). The theory of communicative action: The critique of functionalist reason, Vol. 2. (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, J. (1987b). The philosophical discourse of modernity. (F. Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity. Habermas, J. (2003). Truth and justification. (B. Fultner, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Henriksen, L. B., Nrreklit, L., Jrgensen, K. M., Christensen, J. B., & ODonnell, D. (2004). Dimensions of change Conceptualising reality in organizational research. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Hoffman, J. J., Hoelscher, M. L., & Sherif, K. (2005). Social capital, knowledge management and sustained superior performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 93100. Holms, L. (1995). HRM and the irresistible rise of the discourse of competence. Personnel Review, 24(4), 1628. Johanson, J. E. (2000). Formal structure and intra-organisational networks: An analysis in a combined social and health organization in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 16(3), 249267. Jrgensen, K. M. (2004). Creating value-based collaboration: Life forms and power in a change project. M@n@gement, 7(3), 85107. Jrgensen, K. M. (2006). Conceptualising intellectual capital as language game and power. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(1), 7892. Jrgensen, K. M. (2007). Power without glory. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Kessels, J. W. M., & Poell, R. F. (2004). Andragogy and social capital theory: The implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 146157. Kuchinke, P. (1998). Moving beyond the dualism of performance versus learning: A response to Barrie and Pace. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(4), 377385. Leana, C. R., & van Buren, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538. Leenders, R. Th. A. J. & Gabbay, S. M. (Eds.). (1999). Corporate social capital and liability. Boston: Kluwer. Lin, N. (1982). Social resources and instrumental action. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 131145). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ODonnell et al. / CMS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

433

Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., & Vaughn, J. C. (1981). Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review, 46(4), 393405. Loury, G. C. (1992). The economics of discrimination: Getting to the core of the problem. Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 1, 91110. McGuire, D., ODonnell, D., Garavan, T. N., Saha, S. K., & Murphy, J. (2001). The cultural boundedness of theory and practice in HRD. Cross Cultural Management, 9(2), 2244. ODonnell, D. (1999). Habermas, critical theory and selves-directed learning. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(4/5), 252261. ODonnell, D. (2004). Theory and method on intellectual capital creation: Addressing communicative action through relative methodics. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 294311. ODonnell, D. (2007). On critical theory in a truthless world. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(1), 111119. ODonnell, D., & Henriksen, L. B. (2002). Philosophical foundations for a critical evaluation of the social impact of ICT. Journal of Information Technology, 17(2), 8999. ODonnell, D., McGuire, D., & Cross, C. (2006). Critically challenging some assumptions in HRD. International Journal of Training and Development, 10(1), 415. Oh, H., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (1999, August 811). Communal social capital, linking social capital, and economic outcomes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL. Peltonen, T. (2006). Critical theoretical perspectives on international human resource management. In G. K. Stahl & I. Bjorkman (Eds.), Handbook of research in international human resource management (pp. 523535). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 124. Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 13201350. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: Americas declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 6578. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Samra-Fredericks, D. (2000). Doing boards-in-action researchAn ethnographic approach for the capture and analysis of directors and senior managers interactive routines. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 8(3), 244257. Samra-Fredericks, D. (2003). A proposal for developing a critical pedagogy in management from researching organizational members everyday practice. Management Learning, 34(3), 291312. Sandefur, R. L., Laumann, E. O., & Heinz. (1999). Chicago Bar. In R. Th. A. J. Leenders & S. M. Gabbay (Eds.), Corporate social capital and liability (pp. 6887). Boston: Kluwer.

434

Advances in Developing Human Resources

August 2007

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219237. Simmel, G. (1955). The web of group affiliations. In K. Wolff (Ed.), Conflict and web of group affiliations. (pp. 125195). Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original work published 1922) Sorensen, A. B. (1977). The structure of inequality and the process of attainment. American Sociological Review, 42, 965978. Storberg, J. (2002). The evolution of capital theory: A critique of a theory of social capital and implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 1(4), 468499. Townley, B. (1993). Foucault, power/knowledge, and its relevance for human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 518545. Tymon, W. G., & Stumpf, S. A. (2003). Social capital in the success of knowledge workers. Career Development International, 8(1), 1220. Wakefield, S. E. L., & Poland, B. (2005). Family, friend or foe? Critical reflections on the relevance and role of social capital in human promotion and community development. Social Science and Medicine, 60, 28192832. Willmott, H. (2005). Organization theory as a critical science? Forms of analysis and new organizational forms. In H. Tsoukas & C. Knudsen (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory, (pp. 88112). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.), Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published 1953) World Bank. (1999). What is Social Capital? PovertyNet. Retrieved July 28, 2006, from http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/whatsc.htm David ODonnell, Intellectual Capital Research Institute of Ireland, has almost 30 years experience in HRD, 20 of these as a practitioner where he trained more than 50 nationalities. He has qualifications in science, education, production engineering, science and technology, HRD (masters of science), and management. His research interests lie in the relationship between human capital and intellectual capital and in critical management studies from a Frankfurt School perspective, particularly applications of the work of Jrgen Habermas. He has conducted research for the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants as well as other international collaborative projects. He has published more than 40 journal articles in journals including the Journal of Intellectual Capital, Journal of Information Technology, HRD Review, HRD Quarterly, and Human Resource Costing and Accounting as well as numerous refereed conference proceedings, book chapters, and practitioner pieces. Claire Gubbins, PhD, MCIPD, MIITD, BBS, is a lecturer of management in the Department of Management & Marketing at University College Cork. Previous to this she was a lecturer with the Department of Personnel & Employment Relations at the University of Limerick. She received her PhD from the University of Limerick and focused on the influence of social capital on the career and work outcomes of HRD professionals. She was awarded the Government of Ireland Research Scholarship and the University of Limerick Registrars scholarship for this study. Her current research interests

ODonnell et al. / CMS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

435

are in the areas of social capital and trust; social capital and knowledge management and organizational learning; and human resource management in the public sector. David McGuire is a lecturer in human resource development at Napier University Business School, Edinburgh, UK. He is an editorial board member of the Journal of European Industrial Training and Advances in Developing Human Resources. He has worked as lead investigator on the European Commissionfunded STREAM (Strategic Training for Recruitment and Retention of Employees and Managers) project and is UK project director of the European Commissionfunded STEP (Service Sector Training in European Employment Practices) project. His research interests include boundary setting in HRD, critical approaches to HRD, and the use of competency frameworks. McGuire is a former recipient of the Irish American Fulbright Scholarship and also received a government of Ireland scholarship for his doctorate. Kenneth Mlbjerg Jrgensen is an associate professor in the Department of Education & Learning at Aalborg University, Denmark, where he has acted as research coordinator for a number of years. His main research interests lie in the areas of competence development, organizational learning, identity, power, and organizational change. He has a particular interest in Foucauldian analyses, dialogue, and case research methodology. He has spent time as a visiting scholar at Stanford University in the United States and at the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia. He has published widely in both Danish and English. Lars Bo Henriksen is an associate professor in the Department of Development & Planning at Aalborg University, Denmark. His main research interests are in the areas of organization sociology; philosophy of technology; theory of engineering sciences and the social construction and development of engineers; and sociological theory and method. He has published widely in both Danish and English. Thomas N. Garavan is an academic working with the Department of Personnel and Employment Relations, Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick. He is considered the leading academic and researcher in the field of training and development in Ireland. He has acquired a significant worldwide reputation as an author of more than 60 academic articles, as editor of the Journal of European Industrial Training for the past 7 years and associate editor of Human Resource Development International for the past 3 years. He is a member of the European Academy of Human Resource Development. He is co-author of the leading academic text on training and development in Ireland. The text, Training and Development in Ireland: Context, Policy and Practice, is widely used by students in Irish universities and institutes of technology.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.