SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İş ve İnsan Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2

Investigation of the Social Capital and Interpersonal Trust with Social Network Analysis

Sosyal Sermaye ve Bireyler Arası Güven İlişkisinin Sosyal Ağ Analizi ile İncelenmesi

Şafak BAYKAL
Sait GÜRBÜZ
Pages
77–91
Publication Date
2016-10-21
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, higher levels of social capital positively associate with higher levels of confidence in actions of management which is the subdimension of Interpersonal Trust.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Two aspects of social capital are focused in this study: Bonding, homophilous social capital (BoSC), and Bridging, heterophilous social capital (BrSC).
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this aim, a sample group (N=61) working at a defence company in Turkey have been chosen.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, higher levels of social capital positively associate with higher levels of confidence in actions of management which is the subdimension of Interpersonal Trust.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dayanışmacı sosyal sermaye · Aracı sosyal sermaye · Sosyal ağ analizi

Abstract

Two aspects of social capital are focused in this study: Bonding, homophilous social capital (BoSC), and Bridging, heterophilous social capital (BrSC). Then the relation of social capital (BoSC/BrSC) with interpersonal trust is analyzed. For this aim, a sample group (N=61) working at a defence company in Turkey have been chosen. The data is analyzed with Social Network Analysis (SNA) and other statistical tests. SNA is applied to this group to find out BoSC and BrSC levels. In conclusion, higher levels of social capital positively associate with higher levels of confidence in actions of management which is the subdimension of Interpersonal Trust. This finding shows us the actors with higher level of confidence in actions of management, who behaves in this way, prone to trust the other actors in the social network.

Özet

Sosyal sermayeyi; dayanışmacı sosyal sermaye ve aracı sosyal sermaye olmak üzere iki farklı bakış açısıyla ele alan bu çalışmada, çalışanların sosyal ağ içinde sahip olduğu düşünülen sosyal sermayesi ile yine örgütteki kişilere duyduğu güven arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Bu amaçla Türkiye’de savunma sanayisinde faaliyet gösteren bir şirketten örneklem (N=61) seçilmiştir. Toplanan veriler Sosyal Ağ Analizi (SAA) ve diğer istatiksel analiz teknikleri ile analiz edilmiştir. Çalışanların sosyal sermayeleri SAA ile ölçülmüştür. Çalışma sonucunda ele alınan sosyal sermaye yaklaşımlarıyla kişiler arası güven alt boyutlarından birisi olan yönetimin eylemlerine itimat etme düzeyi arasında anlamlı ve olumlu yönde bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Bu bulgu yönetimin eylemlerine güvenen ve bu yönde davranış gösteren kişilerin, sosyal ağdada diğer kişilere daha çok güven duyan kişiler olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAYKAL, Ş., GÜRBÜZ, S. (2016). Investigation of the Social Capital and Interpersonal Trust with Social Network Analysis. İş ve İnsan Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2, 77–91. https://ajindex.com/articles/164294

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Bachmann, R. (2003). Trust and power as means of coordinating the internal relations of the organization - A conceptual framework. İçinde B. Nooteboom, & F. Six (Der.), Trust process in organizations: Emprical studies of determinants and the process of trust development (ss. 58-73). USA: E. Elgar Publishing. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
  2. Barney, J. B. & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness: can it be a source of competitive advantage?. Strategic Management Journal, 15(82), 175-203.
  3. Başak, S. & Öztaş, N. (2010). Güven ağbağları, sosyal sermaye ve toplumsal cinsiyet. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1), 27-56.
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. İçinde J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (ss. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.
  5. Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 50-65.
  6. Brislin, R. W., (1986). Back-translation methods: The wording and translation of research instruments. İçinde W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Ed.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (ss. 137 – 164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Burt, S. R. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339-365.
  7. Burt, S. R. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 22, 345-423.
  8. Burt, S. R. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. İçinde Nan Lin, Karen S. Cook K.ve Burt R. S. (Ed.), Social capital: Theory and research. Sociology and economics: Controversy and integration series. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Butler, J.K. Jr. & Cantrell, S. (1984). A Behavioral Decision Theory Approach to Modeling Dyadic Trust in Superiors and Subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 19-28.
  9. Cohen, D. & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: How social capital makes organizations work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Pres. Cohen, A. C. (2005). Social capital through workplace connections: opportunities for workers with ıntellectual disabilities, (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Faculty of the Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University Waltham, Massachusetts. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of the human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120