paper link

http://www.jstor.org/view/00018392/di015549/01p0039q/1?frame=noframe&userID=80fde168@cornell.edu/01c0a8347300501bed2f9&dpi=3&config=jstor

As we know, there are certain people play as bridges between social networks. These kind of people can build weak ties between networks, thus can sometimes have more opportunity, like job interviews, and information. What characteristics do these people uniquely have? How much do other people in the networks care about them? What influence would have if they leave the networks? How well would they perform at work? This paper gives you the answer. This paper used a research to represent a theory(self-monitoring theory)-driven examination of how personality relates to social structure and how social structure and personality combine to predict work performance. This paper doesn’t focus on “the overall structure of network ties”, but referencing self-monitoring theory to enrich the understanding of vital network topics as how is likely to bridge structural holes and connection between structural position and work performance.

  Psychologically,  self-monitoring can be defined as the tendency for people to monitor their behavior in such a way that it fits the demands of the current situation. Low self-monitoring people tend to behave in accord with their internal inclinations, regardless of situations; while high self-monitoring people tend to behave in an opposite way.

 As concluded from this paper, personality affects the way individuals build networks: high self-monitors tended to occupy central positions in social networks; personality affects the way individuals build friendship networks over time: high self-monitors became more central the longer they stayed in the organization; self-monitoring and centrality in social networks independently predict individuals’ workplace performance. It appears that high and low self-monitors pursue different network strategies, with high self-monitors tending to occupy positions that span social divides, whereas low self-monitors remain tied to more homogeneous social worlds.

 This paper explored three models, a mediation model, an interaction model and an additive model, to find combined structural position and self-monitoring would affect individual performance.   In mediation model, the success of high self-monitors in outperforming low self-monitors is doe to the greater success of the high self-monitors in occupying strategically advantageous positions in social networks in organizations. In interaction model, prediction is that relationship between network position and performance depends on the self-monitoring orientation of the person occupying the network position: high. Self-monitors should be able to exploit high-betweenness positions more effectively. But actually can’t find any support. Finally, according to additive model, self-monitoring and structural position should independently predict performance in organizations. Results show that high-monitors tended to outperform low self-monitors, and those occupying high-betweenness centrality positions tended to outperform those occupying low-betweenness centrality positions. The overall results suggest a complex relationship among self-monitoring, structural position and performance. High self-monitors tended to achieve higher performance, as did individuals who occupied high-betweenness centrality positions in friendship and in networks. 

This point is an interesting one. It gives us a hint of the hynamic status of a network. I try to find more, like how would a network develop without a bridge to the outside; will more or fewer people in a network tend to become “bridges” ;do a network like more or less of the “bridges” people to regular people? This paper doestn’t give the results, but at least, it gives a hint to think about it.