case study socio

8/8/2019 Case Study Socio

1/15

- Exploring social networks -

The Third Entity in the Dyad:The Relationship

Diana Jones

Presented at Sunbelt Conference, VancouverApril 2006

INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 [email protected] Diana Jones

back to www.sociometry.co.nz

NEXT


2/15

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

NEXTBACKback to www.sociometry.co.nz


3/15

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

Khler

Granovetter

Lee White ( Harvard )

Harary (MichiganUni)Lazarsfeld

Wellman

Nadel

Lewin

Warner

Mayo -Business

Hawthorne Studies

Moreno

Social Psychology

Social Economics-Harvard

Cross

Borgatti

Burt

Freeman

INSNA Sunbelt April 2006 Diana Jones

BACK NEXTback to www.sociometry.co.nz


4/15

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

Isolates

Structural Holes

One way relationships

Negative relationships, the choosenot to.

Exploring the relationship between the

dyad




5/15

- Tele -the flow of feeling between people

People are:attracted to one another on specific criteria, likemolecules of hydrogen and oxygenrepulsed, or move away from one another, similar to

magnetic poles, or oil and water neutral, i.e. dont have a sense of the other. (Think falling

in love with someone who doesnt know you exist, or theymight just prefer to have coffee with you.)(Moreno 1953; Moreno 1987; Moreno 2000)




6/15

Symmetrical

Mutual, Reciprocal

The relationship is of mutual benefitto both actors

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

BC


AB

Asymmetrical

Non-mutual, One wayThis relationship is of benefit to B,

As response to B is unclear. A may beunaware of B, be negative to B on thecriteria or question being explored. Expertnetworks are often characterised in thisway

A



7/15

Third option: what is the relationship

between this dyad?

A

B

C


Is this relationship a structuralhole?Are the two people aware of oneanother?Are they negative to one anotheron the criteria being researched,and what is the significance of thisto the work of this group?



8/15

Collecting social network dataQuestions 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..

elicit a structural response related to job function, whereas.

Who do you go to for advice.Who do you trust toWho do you discuss work concerns withWho do you discuss and explore innovations withWho do you go to to find out whats happening in the organisation?

go to the heart of the socio-emotional networks of thegroups you are working with.



9/15

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

with me, so we enhance consistency andquality in our organisation?




10/15

GeneralManager

ManagerBusinessSupport

BusinessSupport

BusinessSupport

Manager

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

TL

4 Staff (3 Permanent,1 Temp)


6 Staff

7 Staff (6 Permanent, 1Temp)

12 Staff (6Permanent, 6 Temp)

6 Staff


10 Staff (All Temps)



4 Staff

15 Staff (10Permanent, 5 Temp)

Site 4

Sites 1, 2 and 3

ManagementTeam, located

at Site 4

Site 4

KEY

Formal Organisation Chart


Site 5



11/15

Density:Group Size: 17Potential Ties: 272Actual Ties: 143Density: 53%

Average number of positive choices made/received: 9Range of positive choices received: 3-15Range of positive choices made: 4-16

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

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

Group Statistics




12/15

All Positive Choices


Density of positive relationships is 53%

Sites 1, 2 and 3


at Site 4

Site 4

KEY

Site 5



13/15

All Positive Mutual Choices


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

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

Sites 1, 2 and 3


at Site 4

Site 4

KEY

Site 5



14/15

A mutual negative Choice


While positive mutual relationships are the glue ingroups, negative choices are anatural aspect of group life. In looking at this groupthere appeared to be a high number of negativechoices. The one relationship we are consideringhere shows a mutual negative relationship. Thismeans both people did not choose the other withthe criteriawho in this group do I trust to solve a work problem with me, so we enhance consistency

and quality in our organisation ? So while on the

map this relationship is not displayed, a powerfulforce remains between these two people, affectingthe group. Participants in this exploration receivedtheir individual choices, and many shared theirreasons for choosing or not choosing one another.As a result participants developed clearerperceptions of what constituted trust andcollaboration in this group and in doing so anumber of people developed positive relationshipswith more colleagues.



15/15

Summary

Looking at positive choices on criteria provides only asmall part of the relationship picture

Wise judgment and group facilitation skills are needed

when gathering data, exploring and displaying negativechoices

When SNAers research work groups other than mappinginformation flows, researchers need to have clearagreements with participants on the purposes data isbeing collected for, how it will be used and who will seewhat is generated

.back to www.sociometry.co.nz

case study socio

Documents