Sunbelt XXXI International Network for Social Network ... - INSNA

Formal And Informal Human Network Management In Leadership PerspectiveKim, Dae JoongPoster SessionIntra‐organizational Networks, LeadershipSAT.PM3Organizational human network fmanagement or one condition of leadership has not much studied, especially in public organizations. Most leadership studiesfocus on leader’s traits and skills, organizational situation, subordinate’s motivation, etc. However, the fact that organizational success or stable operationdepends on how leaders understand the informal human network in their organization and apply the network into their formal structure has been relevantlyignored in leadership study. Based on this aspect I have analyzed a Korean national research institute I had been worked at for two years. During the period,there was one time when our leader was changed. The leader had been selected through an open competition. In addition, the new leader had a face‐to‐faceinterview with people to see where they wanted to be posted. Most of them had been rearranged to the places they hoped. However, the organization wouldnot be stable for one year. Other conditions such as the number of employees and salary are same. If so, why? There was much more disconnection betweenformal and informal human network than the previous leader. This can be easily checked through the diagrams supported by social network analysisprograms. On the diagrams, his predecessor has a similar pattern between formal and informal human network is not large, but the new leader does not. Thediscrepancy between formal and formal human network caused the organization unstable. Thus, in the future leadership studies are needed to add a studybetween informal human network and formal human network as a prescriptive approach.Formalism And Relationalism In Social Network TheoryErikson, EmilyNetwork TheoryTheoryFRI.AM2There is a widespread misconception in and about social network analysis that social networks are necessarily relational. In current social theory, relationalismhas a specific definition. Relationalism is a theoretical tradition in sociology based in the work of the pragmatist tradition of Charles Henry Pierce, GeorgeHerbert Mead, William James, and John Dewey. It rejects essentialism, a priori categories, and insists upon the intersubjectivity of experience and meaning, aswell as the importance of the content of interactions and their historical setting. Formalism, however, is based in the theoretical works of Georg Simmel.Simmel based his theory on a Kantian program of identifying a priori categories of relational types and patterns that operate independently of cultural contentor historical setting. Where relationalists insist on setting, formalists seek to identify patterns that transcend setting. Where formalists seek to identify thelocus of social action in patterns devoid of content, relationalists focus on the intersubjective creation of meaning and content. And importantly, formalists areengaged in a project of identifying generalizable laws of social interaction, whereas relationalists are more interested in techniques for producing historicallysituatedexplanations. Confusion between the two research programs has generated incoherent research agendas and a widespread misunderstanding of whatthe field can, should, or is attempting to accomplish. In this paper, I distinguish the two theoretical strains.