Social Networks and Career Advancement of People With Disabilities

Density

Network density is defined as the ratio of the number of actual links to possible links in a network (Brass, 1995). Density thus reflects connectedness among actors within a network (Tichy, Tushman, & Fombrun, 1979). High network density implies that many actors are connected with each other while few are connected in sparse networks. Dense networks do not have many structural holes, or positions, where an individual can serve as a tie between two disconnected actors (Burt, 1992). Both dense and sparse networks influence career mobility in different ways and serve different career functions.

Dense networks directly influence career outcomes by serving psychosocial functions associated with work satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational socialization, all of which are in turn associated with career and developmental outcomes (Lee, 2003). Research shows that small, dense networks lead to better defined role and performance expectations, which are important for performance and career advancement (Podolny & Baron, 1997). Dense networks also indirectly allow for career advancement by protecting meritocracy. This is because connected networks afford surveillance or monitoring function. People in such networks worry about reputational risks and, hence, engage relatively less in unethical behavior (Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, 1998) or in self-serving or opportunistic behaviors (Labianca & Brass, 2006).

Sparse networks primarily aid career advancement through structural holes or brokerage positions among disconnected actors. This is because such gaps allow actors to act as a medium between disconnected others and thereby control their environment specifically by controlling the flow of information (Burt, 1997). Sparse networks and associated structural holes also allow actors access to important information at opportune times and allow the actor’s interests to be represented in a positive light at the right time and at the right places. These features are clearly associated with one becoming powerful and one’s career advancement (Burt, 1997; Lee, 2003). Research supports the association between a sparse network, information and resource acquisition, and enhanced career mobility (Podolny & Baron, 1997; Seibert et al., 2001). Thus, when competing for career opportunities, a well-defined organizational identity, including clear and consistent expectations about one’s role, are as important as knowing whom to consult (Podolny & Baron, 1997).

With respect to research with minorities, Granovetter (1983) argues that minorities are more likely to have a dense set of strong tie relationships, given their greater need for social and emotional support. However, these dense relationships may only exist with similar others. Furthermore, such relationships and segregation from the majority lead to a situation where minorities are unlikely to even form a bridge among or with actors that can provide access to the social environment in which the employer operates (Fairchild & Robinson, 2004). Thus, research indicates that irrespective of dense or sparse networks, minorities remain firmly on the fringe of the social collective.

It is likely that the density or connectedness experienced by the majority within organizations may not be a reality for minority employees such as those with a disability. This is because of interactional barriers (Boyle, 1997), lower interdependence (Chatman & Flynn, 2001), and other negative biases against those with a disability (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008). Boyle argues that most individuals have negative biases against those with a disability and experience psychological discomfort when interacting with those with a disability. Interactions hence tend to be avoided by both parties. Other research shows that demographic heterogeneity leads to group norms emphasizing lower cooperation. Although increased contact over time attenuates this effect, heterogeneity leads to lowered interdependence during work activities even when incentives are based on collective output (Chatman & Flynn, 2001).

Those with a disability also encounter biases about their competence or ability (Boyle, 1997; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008). Given their numerical status, minorities especially face greater scrutiny and have fewer mentoring relationships and fewer advancement opportunities (Thomas & Chrobot-Mason, 2005). McFarlin, Song, and Sonntag (1991), through their survey of Fortune 500 companies, found that attitudes toward those with a disability tend to cluster. This meant that individuals who more likely to feel that the disabled have higher absenteeism rates were also more likely to feel that disability accommodation is expensive, that people with a disability experience slower advancement, and that they are poor performers.

It is thus likely that those with a disability remain segregated in otherwise dense groups, given lower relational acceptance and lower performance expectations, and thus, detrimentally affecting their career advancement. They may also not be able to form connecting ties in a sparse network based on their relative nonacceptance as interaction or collaboration partners. Both these situations imply suboptimal or negative career outcomes. Future research can thus examine the following propositions:

Multiplexity

Multiplexity is defined as the degree to which network relationships are multidimensional or have common actors. For example, when one has a coworker who is also a friend outside of the workplace, this social tie with the coworker is considered to be multiplex (Granovetter, 1973). Multiplex relationships can help with instrumental benefits (Cotton et al., 2011). People offer and seek help to and from those with whom they feel psychologically safe (Bamberger, 2009). This is likely to happen in networks where people have multiple ties with each other. Research shows that multiplex networks where people trust one another and benefit each other are usually small and homophilic, from a social and affective perspective (Völker & Flap, 2001). Such networks are in turn associated with greater career-related help in the form of exposure, sponsorship, protection or friendship, counseling, and acceptance (Higgins & Kram, 2001). Multiplex relationships also indirectly lead to career outcomes by constraining unethical behavior. This is because people do not wish to break multiple ties with their interaction partners (Brass et al., 1998). It is thus likely that when ties are multiplex in nature, career mobility is determined more by meritocracy than by cronyism (see Begley, Khatri, & Tsang, 2010).

Some research shows that mutliplexity of ties within the organization is weaker for minorities than for the majority. For example, Ibarra (1995) states that because cross-race relationships are usually weak, minorities may develop nonoverlapping social and work-related circles in the workplace. Furthermore, since minorities usually have affective ties with similar others within and outside the workplace and are not always part of the majority social group, their workplace ties are unlikely to be multiplex as compared with those who are in nonminority groups. Consequently, minorities are relatively more deprived of multiplex social ties and associated social resources such as coaching and information about opportunities (Friedman et al., 1998).

Some disability-specific research also indicates that those with a disability may develop nonoverlapping social and work-related circles in the workplace (Kulkarni & Lengnick-Hall, 2011). Notably, those with a disability may harm their own social integration by reflecting a perceived negative societal attitude toward them (Zernitsky-Shurka, 1988). Zernitsky-Shurka’s study of two disability rehabilitation groups (visible and emotional disabilities) showed that both groups expressed the most positive evaluation toward the person without any disability and the most negative evaluation toward the other stigmatized group. Furthermore, both groups negatively evaluated the person who was in the same position as them, that is, in the process of rehabilitation. Notably, persons with a physical disability evaluated their successfully rehabilitated in-group member less positively than they evaluated a person without any disability.

Given self-selection out of social ties and imposed segregation, it is unlikely that people with disabilities possess multiplex ties within their workplace. They are thus unlikely to enjoy career benefits stemming from multiplex relationships in an organizational network. Future research can examine the following propositions:

Cohesiveness

Cohesiveness is defined as actors’ affinity for each other and a desire to remain part of the group (Brass, 1995). Cohesion can also be reflected in strength of ties between actors (Burt, 1997). Strong or cohesive ties are those that are of long duration, exercised frequently and emotionally close (Granovetter, 1973). Actors with such ties have similar information (Bartol & Zhang, 2007; Burt, 1997), and they generally adopt similar attitudes (Brass, in press).

Research indicates that ties conveying resources and information are associated with career advancement, but ties conveying identity and expectations are not (Podolny & Baron, 1997). Strong ties seem to work better for women and newly hired managers, whereas weak ties are associated with early promotions for others (Burt, 1992). Notably, network cohesion may lead to unethical behaviors given similar attitudes, high social influence, and high communication (Brass et al., 1998). Ties thus serve different purposes and are inconsistently associated with career advancement (Lee, 2003).

Research examining the influence of social inclusion on career mobility shows that employees from a minority group may be on the periphery of otherwise cohesive groups. Gersick et al. (2000) conducted interviews with business school faculty and found that social ties directly influence career mobility, and negative ties can be as consequential as helpful ties. Women respondents in this study told more stories of harm, and men talked more about help through social ties. These researchers concluded that different relational experiences lead to different career logics (or ways of striving for career success). Their results also showed that women’s interactions turned into tests of relational acceptance more than periods for reputational enhancement.

Minorities may thus begin from positions of insecurity when starting their careers, and this may lead to a hesitant approach toward relationships and network building. Ties thus inform individuals’ about their value in the social system and shape their beliefs about what their careers can or ought to be. Inclusion or strong close ties are thus significant as they influence career advancement. Gersick et al. (2000) argue that when careers are seen as tests that produce anxiety, individuals may divert attention away from tasks leading to detrimental career outcomes. Career outcomes may also be hurt in the presence of such a hesitant approach toward network building. This is because career outcomes are more influenced by informal relationships than by formal mentoring programs (Underhill, 2006) and because opportunities for short-duration mentoring episodes (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007) may remain lacking.

Theories of social identity and self-categorization (e.g., Tajfel, 1981) have been leveraged to explain the lack of relational cohesion or acceptance of those with a disability (Shore et al., 2009). Category-based thinking especially lowers cohesiveness or increases social isolation of those with a disability in organizations (Klimoski & Donahue, 1997). Apart from self-limiting behaviors that those with a disability may display, career advancement is also affected by a token or out-group status for those with a disability. Such an out-group status implies lack of role models, lack of mentors, and lack of critical feedback leading to stalled or slow careers (Jones, 1997).

Those with a disability indeed obtain and act upon subtle negative cues they get from their social environment, especially with reference to seeking help (Baldridge & Veiga, 2001), and research shows that they refrain from making requests (e.g., for accommodation) so as not to impose on others or hurt their image (Baldridge & Veiga, 2001, 2006). It is unlikely then that a situation of perceived out-group status, lack of mentors, or low possibility of critical feedback is conducive to career-related help seeking, or career-related conversations. Indeed, the very notion of career success may mean inclusion more than promotions or recognition for those with a disability. Future research can thus examine the following propositions:

Homophily

Homophily is defined as the degree of similarity based on identity or organizational group affiliations (Marsden, 1988). Homophily implies that similarity breeds connections in social ties. Thus, people’s personal networks are typically homogeneous with respect to many sociodemographic, behavioral, and intrapersonal characteristics. Homophily has implications for interactions that people experience. This is because homophily translates into network distance and number of relationships among similar others. Furthermore, ties between nonsimilar individuals dissolve at a higher rate (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001).

Although spatial, temporal, and social proximity helps foster relationships, people prefer relationships and interactions with similar others (Brass, in press). Such similarity may be gauged based on distinctiveness in a specific context. Distinctiveness theory (McGuire, 1984) suggests that people tend to identify with others with whom they share characteristics that are relatively rare in a particular social context. Similarity is thus specific to the context.

Homophily may influence careers through ease of communication and trust (Ibarra, 1995). Results of a multicity study show that since homophilic ties ease interaction and take relatively less time to develop and manage, employers rely on similarity when hiring people (Fairchild & Robinson, 2004). Other research shows that similarity or homophily is associated with conversations (Ingram & Morris, 2007) and with accumulation of overall social capital that directly influences career mobility (Friedman & Krackhardt, 1977). Research further shows that both self-selection of homophilic ties and exclusion by others based on differences (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 1998; Mollica, Gray, & Treviño, 2003) influence career outcomes directly and indirectly (Friedman & Krackhardt, 1977).

Mehra et al. found that individuals identify, interact, and form friendships with similar others when they belong to a relatively rare social category (e.g., race or gender). Such numerically underrepresented groups were also likely to face exclusionary pressures and biases given their visible differences as compared with the majority. Thus, minorities were more likely to be structurally marginal and more on the periphery of social networks as compared with the majority groups (Mehra et al., 1998).

Other research shows that a minority individual’s human capital or education does not necessarily lead to his or her manager’s assessments of his or her career potential. Friedman and Krackhardt’s (1977) study showed that education did not translate into managerial assessments of career potential for Chinese and Asian Indians as compared with assessments for European Americans. This is because Chinese and Asian Indians were seen as less similar to self in the U.S. context as compared with European Americans, who were seen as more similar. Friedman and Krackhardt argue that social capital, which is contingent on patterns of attraction and avoidance, mediates the relationship between human capital and promotion decisions. Thus, similar others accumulate both social and instrumental ties leading to career enhancement, whereas minorities have more trouble establishing themselves in dominant social networks that can enhance their careers. Dissimilarity can also lead to negative social ties and, hence, social liabilities in the form of performance, promotions, and income attainment (see Labianca & Brass, 2006). Even when there is no animosity, stereotyping, or discrimination, harmless similarity preferences lower chances of organizational success for minorities (Friedman et al., 1998).

Disability research has applied tenets of the field of relational demography (e.g., Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989) and stigma theory (Goffman, 1963) to demonstrate that dissimilarity is associated with lower liking and integration (Colella & Varma, 2001). Review studies also indicate that perceptions of dissimilarity will predict negative organizational treatment and outcomes for people who have disabilities (Shore et al., 2009). Career advancement of those with a disability will be particularly influenced also because leaders may perceive those with a disability as less similar and, hence, may experience less affect for them and may expect less contribution from them (Colella & Varma, 2001).

Other organizational actors who may have input into career outcomes may also sideline people with disabilities based on discrediting attributes or stigmas (Goffman, 1963) as they try to avoid interactions fearing stigma by association (see Kulik, Bainbridge, & Cregan, 2008). Finally, some research, as indicated earlier, shows that those with a disability may prefer homophilic ties and approach similar others more for advice and social support (Kulkarni & Lengnick-Hall, 2011). Overall, similarity-based preferences or homophily may leave those with a disability on the social margins within majority groups, and thereby, negatively influence their career advancement. The final set of propositions, thus, is as follows:

Combined Structural Effects and Other Directions for Future Research

So far, effects of individual network characteristics on career advancement of people with disabilities have been articulated. However, network characteristics are intertwined and, hence, together have implications with regards to career outcomes. For example, actor similarity or homophily may lead to cohesion or strong ties among the majority group. This is because frequent interactions take place with similar others that can lead to (or are indicative of) strong ties (Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981). Furthermore, interaction between dissimilar actors is likely to be infrequent, not always reciprocated, unstable, uniplex, weak, and possibly likely to dissolve relatively quickly. Similarity of actors may be positively related to the density or connectedness of the network (Brass, in press). We can argue that, when those with a disability are disadvantaged based on lack of similarity with the majority, it may also mean they are not part of the dense or connected network and not part of cohesive or affinity majority groups. They thus remain peripheral actors and do not enjoy career benefits of access to and control over resources that someone more central and more connected may enjoy.

Those with a disability may quite well experience different structural and relational worlds as compared with the majority who do not have disabilities. Future research can postulate and examine the additive or multiplicative effects of various network characteristics on career advancement of people with disabilities. For example, does it matter that such groups of people are perceived as different yet have dense connections that allow them access to critical career-related information at opportune times? Which network characteristics matter the most as far as career outcomes for those with a disability are concerned?

As indicated earlier, to initiate conversations in an area where no research exists, I have focused only on macro network characteristics and not on the individual’s position in the network or the individual’s personality or other characteristics. Future research can examine all of these simultaneously. Indeed, although a social structure influences interaction, repeated interaction over time also leads to social structure. Social structures can thus be modified gradually over time (Brass, in press). It is then likely that as contact with people with disabilities increases, stigmas and preconceived negative biases give way for deeper and more meaningful interactions (Stone & Colella, 1996).

Alternatively, it is likely that initial ambivalent or negative expectancies and responses get amplified over time (see Katz & Glass, 1979). Researchers can conduct field studies to answer these questions. Such studies will determine the degree and direction in which disability influences social interaction. For example, does the socialization period allow people to change or form opinions about relational acceptance of someone they saw as being different during the recruitment and selection phase? Does the socialization phase cement all future interactions and network acceptance of the individual with a disability? At what temporal and event threshold point does a “different” person become an in-group person who partakes benefits of cohesion enjoyed by the majority? Answers to these questions also have clear practical implications for human resource development.

Another fruitful area of research is the examination of the macro external institutional context, as it influences organizational social networks. Research shows that the institutional environment determines the different kinds of social relationships that people invest in (Völker & Flap, 2001). If that is the case, does the network and associated career reality differ for those with a disability when the organization is situated in certain prodisability institutional environment? For example, will those with a disability be recipients of affinity when the organization is situated in an environment where equal opportunity laws are more in force? Or will the majority take that to mean forced cohesion, and consequently, treat the person with a disability as being different and leave them on the social periphery?

Finally, to maintain boundaries, I excluded any conversation about the role of the individual. However, career mobility or other outcomes are a function of both human and social capital and of individual and organizational career management strategies (De Vos, Dewettinck, & Buyens, 2009). Thus, future research can expand the present framework to understand how those with a disability themselves play a role in shaping and leveraging organizational social networks. Disability severity and type also have implications for building and leveraging social ties (Stone & Colella, 1996). It is likely the enactment and leverage of social networks is even more inhibited for those with learning disabilities, with consequent (and more negative) implications on career outcomes.

Boundaries of present ideas can also be extended to conceptualize research across organization and job type. It is likely that certain industries (e.g., information technology and software services) hire and include those with a disability more so than organizations from other industries (e.g., manufacturing). This may be based on industry needs for legitimacy, or simply, ability to accommodate and leverage those with a disability in certain jobs. This may imply that social networks and career outcomes are different for different types of work environments. Although some research indicates that performance concerns and concerns about majority employees’ negative reactions to those with a disability are universal across industries (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008), this is a fruitful area of research. As a related point, social networks are situated within and influenced by the organizational culture, values, and norms (Chandler et al., 2011). Thus, the exclusive and combined influence of the organizational culture and social networks on career outcomes of those with a disability also merits attention. Such research can point to environments more conducive to the formation of social networks that can in turn have positive career advancement implications for those with a disability.

Implications for Human Resource Development Practice

Given clear implications of social network structures on career advancement of employees with a disability, what can human resource development professionals do to improve their situation? A few suggestions are outlined in this section. Human resource development professionals can start from the very beginning, as soon as one enters the workforce. For example, it is known that those with a disability face social and inclusion barriers right from their organizational entry (Colella, 1994). Human resource development professionals can help with structured socialization programs such that those with a disability can initiate relationships with possible mentors and others who can give them instrumental advice and other psychosocial support. Such ties will help minority employees assimilate faster and better into the overall social network. Such support can also be extended by employers during periods of role transitions. Assigned mentors can help their protégés with a disability as well as ensure that they know enough to navigate the organizational social landscape independently.

Human resource development professionals can also conduct periodic network audits to determine whether, which, and why particular network characteristics systematically marginalize certain employees. Such assessments can map the flow of communications and the degree of connections among employees and also point to individuals who are isolated because of processes or biases. Processes can then be rectified by job and process redesign, and biases can be reduced through training. Education through training of both coworkers and the focal person with a disability will help with complete relational assimilation (Colella, 1994). For example, minority employees can be trained to become proactive and shape their social networks or form network groups. Having more contacts indeed increases the chances of locating mentors and of gaining useful career-related information (Friedman et al., 1998).

Next, human resource development professionals can build modules for periodic and focused sensitivity training. Such training can be aimed at building cohesion among all employees and for creating an organization-specific identity. Such cohesion and a common identity may lead to feelings of homophily or similarity and, thus, may lead to a sense of true inclusion. Instrumental or work-related help giving and seeking may improve given these efforts and thereby enhance career outcomes of minorities, such as those with a disability.

However, it is likely that training alone is insufficient to bring about workplace changes (Burke & Hutchins, 2007). Hence, the effectiveness of such training can be further enhanced by human resource development professionals through the creation of a macro climate for diversity management. Research (e.g., Rynes & Rosen, 1995) indicates that broader organizational context and the support of the top management in particular enhance both the adoption and the perceived success of diversity training initiatives. The same research points to the importance of dedicated diversity managers and formalized policies. Human resource development professionals can certainly help build inclusive social networks through creation and enforcement of diversity policies (e.g., regarding evaluations or career advancement) and by serving as diversity managers or by helping organizations find such personnel. Focusing on all of the above suggestions will help ensure that the workplace is truly accepting of all perspectives, which can enhance both organizational and individual learning and create a strong and common identity among all employees (e.g., Chrobot-Mason & Thomas, 2002).