This is a brief summary around social networks at work, and around BaME networks which I am looking at in support of a new Diversity Netwroking Analysis tool I am working on.
Any organisation, from small teams to the largest corporation holds within it a social network or networks, largely invisible but none the less influential in the success of the organisation and the careers of those within it. Business restructuring has resulted in organisations with fewer levels of management, and more permeable functional boundaries. In these flatter, more organic and less formal organisations the impact of informal networks of relationships rather than formal reporting structures becomes ever more important to organisational and personal success ( Cross, 2011). This is set against a background of more global marketplaces and labour forces, and of more diverse teams. The notion that minority and majority groups staff members may have different informal networks therefore has the potential to impact careers and business effectiveness if these networks do not promote their own and business needs effectively.
One of the key problems faced by women and BaME groups in organizational settings is limited access to or exclusion from informal interaction networks (DiTomaso, Thompson, & Blake, 1988; Fernandez, 1981; O'Leary & Ickovics, 1992). These networks often control resources that are key for job effectiveness and career advancement as well as providing benefits such as job and social support (see Tichy, 1981, for a review). Limited network access, therefore, produces many disadvantages, including restricted information around what is going on in their organisation and difficulty in forming alliances. These are associated with limited mobility and "glass ceiling" effects (DiTomaso et al., 1988; Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990; O'Leary & Ickovics, 1992).
Ibarra (1993) suggested that the organisational context in which social networks are embedded produces constraints on women and racial minorities, causing their networks to differ from those of their white male counterparts in composition and characteristics of their relationships with network members. Context was hypothesized to affect personal networks directly. Ibarra suggested that women and minorities be seen as active agents who make strategic choices among limiting networks. Ibarra (1995) examined differences between the networks of high potential minority group managers when compared to majority (usually dominant) groups High potential managers. BaME managers had more racially heterogeneous and fewer intimate network relationships. Within the BaME group, differences in advancement potential were associated with different network arrangemnets: high-potential individuals integrated same and cross-race contacts; others had networks dominated by ties to dominant group members. High-potential BaME managers also had more contacts outside their groups, fewer high-status ties, and less overlap between their social and functional circles compared to White managers.
Evidence abounds that the people decisions in organisations are subject to the biases of those already within the organisation. There is also evidence that who gets selected, promoted, supported or fired depends not so much on the conscious, reasoned policies of the organisation so much as our unconscious people preferences (biases). This can be one factor leading to an under representation of some groups in senior positions ( Vasista, 2010). For example, in 2009 only 12.2% of directors on the FTSE 100 boards were women, the number of companies with female executive directors fell to 15 (from 16 in 2008) and the number of boards with multiple women directors fell to 37, from 39 in 2008 ( Sealy et al, 2009). The role that informal networks play in progression cannot be under estimated. Early warning of a vacancy to allow career positioning, support through coaching or advocacy, exposure to the right high profile projects and challenges all impact career progression but much of this operates an at informal level. Vasista (2010) reviewed the evidence that bias had impacted Black and Minority Ethnic (BaME) staff and the outcomes of that bias:
· In 2007, the business-led National Employment Panel reported that up at least 25% of the ‘ethnic minority employment gap’ (the difference between how many Black and minority ethnic people are employed compared to the general population) is caused by discrimination in employment practices (National Employment Panel 2007).
• One-third of Asian and 20% of Black managers surveyed say that racial discrimination had been a barrier to succession (Hooker et al., 2008).
• When subjected to CV testing ( identical CVs submitted with varying dominant or non dominant groups names), private sector employers showed a discrimination rate of 35%
compared to 4% for the public sector (Wood et al 2009).
· 70% of 300 professional Black and minority ethnic women surveyed by The Diversity Practice said they had experienced at least some discrimination based on their race, and 65% because of their gender (2007).
· More than a fifth of individuals surveyed by Race for Opportunity said they had been offended by a racial remark in their place of work, with Chinese respondents the most egregious victims with 35% citing an example, followed by a quarter of Pakistani respondents (Race for Opportunity, 2010).
Although Ibarra (1993, 1995) put forward various theoretical models for how minority group members networks adapted to the constraints, accessing the exact social relationships which exist in a particular team or organisation has traditionally required detailed qualitative study. How exactly the informal networks which operate within organisations may operate for different groups in a given context and may impact the career experiences of non-dominant groups such as women and BaME staff is usually unknown. Insight to how the social networks are impacted by aspects of diversity may afford the opportunity to identify differential networks experiences and to act. Subtle biases manifest themselves in micro-behaviours around our relationships with others. This may include taking less interest in their work and life outside work, having less social contact and sharing less with people who are unlike us.
No comments:
Post a Comment