Networks, Diversity, and Productivity: The Social Capital of Corporate R&D Teams

Abstract

We argue that the debate regarding the performance implications of demographic diversity can be usefully reframed in terms of the network variables that reflect distinct forms of social capital. Scholars who are pessimistic about the performance of diverse teams base their view on the hypothesis that decreased network density—the average strength of the relationship among team members—lowers a team's capacity for coordination. The optimistic view is founded on the hypothesis that teams that are characterized by high network heterogeneity, whereby relationships on the team cut across salient demographic boundaries, enjoy an enhanced learning capability. We test each of these hypotheses directly and thereby avoid the problematic assumption that they contradict one another. Our analysis of data on the social networks, organizational tenure, and productivity of 224 corporate R…D teams indicates that both network variables help account for team productivity. These findings support a recasting of the diversity-performance debate in terms of the network processes that are more proximate to outcomes of interest.

How human capital interacts with the early development of academic spin-offs

“…Furthermore, the strategic choices made in the earliest stages have a greater impact on future development (this is idea of path dependency; see Degroof and Roberts 2003). Additionally, given the absence of a prior track record (Bathelt et al 2010), the characteristics of key persons (in terms of human capital) to be foregrounded in the early development of new ventures, as these offer a source of credibility and legitimacy (Reagans and Zuckerman 2001;Shrader and Siegel 2007).…”

“…The absence of a prior track record for a venture often hampers their ability to obtain sufficient resources Harrison et al 2004), as this absence forces external entities to base their assessment mainly on the characteristics of the key persons (Ostgaard and Birley 1996) in terms of human as well as social capital. The characteristics of the key persons-in terms of their education, work and entrepreneurial experience and social relations-thus become a major source of credibility and legitimacy (Reagans and Zuckerman 2001;Packalen 2007). Furthermore, these key persons play a crucial role in the early development of the venture (Shrader and Siegel 2007).…”

Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups

“…Internal relationships are relevant for coordination, knowledge sharing, and collective action. External relations need to be build too, as research groups depend on it for gaining access Scientometrics (2015) 102:25-49 29 to resources such as knowledge, information, reputation, experience, and funding (Reagans and Zuckerman 2001;Reagans et al 2004;Oh et al 2004Oh et al , 2006. Building internal and external relationships are complementary processes in which group leaders play a crucial role.…”

Diversity and Productivity in Production Teams

“…3 Their theory implies that partnerships among homogeneous workers are advantageous because mutual monitoring and social sanctions are effective at punishing deviators. A number of authors including Reagans andZuckerman (2001), Spagnolo (1999), and Towry (2003) emphasize the importance of social ties or social capital in encouraging cooperation in workplace. If workers in the same demographic group are more likely to belong to overlapping social networks, peer pressure may be more effective in mitigating free-riding because the implicit threat of breaking social ties will create peer pressure thus providing incentives.…”