The dark side of social networks

Nikos Bozionelos

Normally when there is talk of professional relations we tend to put accent on the positive side of developing this sort of network. It is a good thing to communicate with colleagues and those higher up the hierarchal ladder. Doing so creates a better work environment, encourages greater understanding and can help further careers. What is seldom discussed is what can be seen as the ‘dark side’ of networking and other forms of social ties that come under the umbrella of ‘social capital’.

To present this flip side of the coin, a definition is first needed for social capital. This term means resources such as information, influence and solidarity that individuals benefit from thanks to their relationship ties with others and within particular social systems, such as work organisations or professions.

Social capital helps people find jobs and success through two important properties: substitutability and appropriability. Substitutability is all about connections with others which can act as a substitute when the individual is lacking such things as credentials, skills, abilities, or even actual performance. Appropriability means that the same connections with others can serve as a provider of multiple resources. In this way, a friend can be a source of information (for example, for a job opening), solidarity (emotional support) and access to influential others (for example, serving as a common acquaintance to introduce us or to talk about us to a powerful person we do not personally know).

Since its early days, social capital has been praised for its positive effects not only on individuals (as a career booster), but also on organisations and firms. Much less attention, however, has been paid to the potentially negative effects of social capital.

In line with this general view it is seen as a good thing to nurture relationships within the professional sphere which can strengthen the benefits to be gained from social capital. Internet networks that focus on career rather than personal profiles create a huge professional community and are now a firm part of the work life of a vast number of employees worldwide. Given the success of these sites, the accepted truth appears to be that to join this kind of network is without a doubt a good career tactic. It is difficult to oppose such a view. However, what happens when someone does not wish to use such professional internet networks to make a difference interms of career? This is one of the areas where the dark side of the networking culture shows its face.

This ‘dark side’ has its roots in a well-known feature of most cultures — the separation of individuals into ‘in groups’ and ‘out groups’. This distinction provokes a contrast in behaviour depending on whether the person concerned is ‘in’ or ‘out’. Those seen as part of the in group are treated favourablyby their fellow in group members. However, those seen as members of the out group (or outsiders) are often ignored and in some cases can even be treated with suspicion or hostility.

What, however, if some people prefer to remain impartial and detached? This means they are not part of any ‘in group’ but automatically become ‘outsiders’ for all others. If certain employees prefer to remain discrete and keep a distance in the workplace, instead letting skills and results speak for them, they do not adhere to the dominant logic. In this way, they can find themselves penalised against, not because they are ineffective but rather because they do not exploit networking as is deemed normal. It is comparatively easy to imagine a situation where a person who is as good, if not better qualified, than another evolves less quickly at work because he or she does not play the network game.

If many employees further their careers more thanks to their social capital than to their real value it is bad news for an organisation. In such a world it is not necessarily the best elements of the workforce that hold the key posts. Instead, it tends to be those employees who know how best to use their contacts. This can mean the firm (or even a country) performs below its potential and that people who succeed through networks at the expense of merit will also favour those who operate in similar ways rather than those who prefer the ‘merit’ route. This creates a self-perpetuating situation.

— The writer is Professor de Management, Organisationand Law, Audencia Nantes School of Management, France