Social network analysis theory and applications

SNA Theory: Its Value to Organizations

Social Network Analysis Theory attempts to understand the "importance of relationships among interacting units. The social network perspective encompasses theories, models, and applications that are expressed in terms of relational concepts or processes" (Gretzel 2001). It suggests that the whole is greater than the sum of individual parts, but unlike other organizational theories, it places a great deal of emphasis on the ways in which interpersonal units function together. The key concept behind SNA theory is that of the 'network.' "Actors and their actions are viewed as interdependent rather than independent, autonomous units," and relational ties are fundamentally responsible for the transfer of resources (Gretzel 2001). Dyads, triads and the connections between these units are more important than individual analysis of what motivates people.

Relationships define networks: without a relationship, the individual's role within the organization cannot be fully understood. This suggests that instead of focusing on 'problem employees,' the organization must understand why relationships are failing and to increase productivity, the organization must focus on improving and building upon connections between individuals. But SNA is not merely a vague, indefinite 'fuzzy' way of understanding organizations, despite its focus on relationships. It involves "mapping and measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups, organizations, computers or other information/knowledge processing entities" using mathematical as well as observational data (Gretzel 2001).

Much of SNA involves 'mapping' the network because "to understand networks and their participants" we evaluate the location of actors in the network (Krebs 2012). "Connectors, mavens, leaders, bridges, isolates" are all roles that individuals can play in a network. The designated role names of SNA specifically refer to how the actor relates to other people. It also notes how actors 'cluster' amongst themselves to form networks, "who is in the core of the network, and who is on the periphery" (Krebs 2012). For example, is the IT department on the periphery of the organization, clustered in its own corner? Is a particular employee within a department socially isolated? Organizational mapping through SNA analysis can help to answer all of these questions.

Nodes are 'connected' in an organizational diagram if they talk or otherwise interact with one another, and a lack of a connection may be just as revelatory as a connection, when evaluating an organizational map. Organizational connections are measured based upon degree centrality, between-ness centrality, and closeness centrality. Degree centrality refers to the "number of direct connections" a node possesses (Krebs 2012). More direct connections are not necessarily 'better' -- it depends to whom and where the connections lead. Between-ness connections refer to the number of connections the individual links to -- which can result in him or her playing a very valuable role in the network. A node who is a broker often has a great deal of influence in the network. "A node with high between-ness has great influence over what flows -- and does not -- in the network" (Krebs 2012). Closeness centrality refers to the relative shortness of the path between one node and another node. Someone may not be particularly powerful in the organization based upon his or her position, but because of closeness centrality may have a great deal of influence, based upon a social link he or she has with the leader.