Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Kent Rondeau and Terry Wagar
Our results are not surprising. When healthcare organizations decentralize nurse decision making and
increase <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> nurse cross-training <strong>the</strong>y are contributing to <strong>the</strong> expansion <strong>of</strong> social capital. These
workplace change programs function in two distinct ways. First, <strong>the</strong>y act by enlarging and enriching
social networks when decision making authority is expanded and when work roles are shared and job
routines are blurred between members. Second, within existing social networks, each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se
change programs contributes to a more rapid accumulation <strong>of</strong> shared trust, goodwill, associability and
reciprocity among nurse members. Flexible and empowering approaches to human resource
management have <strong>the</strong> potential to bring people toge<strong>the</strong>r and to streng<strong>the</strong>n employee bonds.
Workplace employee social capital accumulations also make <strong>the</strong>se human resource management
practices more effective. This is well-summarized by Leana and Van Buren (1999: 549) when <strong>the</strong>y
state that instead <strong>of</strong> “hierarchical control mechanisms, individuals can effectively operate as collective
because <strong>of</strong> general understandings <strong>of</strong> work organization, implicit norms, and generalized, resilient
trust. In this regards, organizational social capital can make collective action more efficient, because it
becomes a substitute for <strong>the</strong> formal contracts, incentives, and monitoring mechanisms that are
necessary in systems with little or no social capital among organizational members.”
If certain workplace change programs act by streng<strong>the</strong>ning existing social networks (bonding social
capital) or by spurring <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> new social contacts (bridging social capital), o<strong>the</strong>r workplace
change initiatives may have a contrary association. Many healthcare organizations that have reduced
<strong>the</strong>ir workforces and <strong>the</strong>n populated <strong>the</strong>ir depleted ranks with casual, temporary and contract
employees are (inadvertently) impacting workplace employee social capital. When people are let go,
social networks are inevitably broken. New hires that are temporary, casual or contracted are unable
to plug into <strong>the</strong> same social networks (or bridge across existing social networks) now ruptured by
departing employees. Job security can be a potential cost <strong>of</strong> maintaining social capital. Leana and
Van Buren (1999: 550) state that “one unfortunate by-product <strong>of</strong> practices such as downsizing is <strong>the</strong>
sanctioning <strong>of</strong> individualistic behavior on <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> organizations and individuals… Damaged in <strong>the</strong>
process is collective identity.” Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, maintaining organizational social capital requires some
level <strong>of</strong> slack resources that can be used to promote member reciprocity, associability and trust.
Organizations undergoing planned workforce reductions have fewer <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se resources available that
would normally be needed to secure employee compliance and goodwill.
Overall, <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> this research suggest that organizations interested in maintaining employee
social capital may need to take a longer-term view <strong>of</strong> employee relations when <strong>the</strong>y consider <strong>the</strong>
implementation <strong>of</strong> various change and development programs. Treating employees as assets to be
developed ra<strong>the</strong>r than as costs to be minimized has strong consequences for how employee social
capital is maintained, enhanced or depleted (Pfeffer, 1998). Cost-based human resource
management practices serves to both de-value both <strong>the</strong> individuals within an organization and <strong>the</strong>
benefit <strong>of</strong> interpersonal relationships. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, an asset-based view <strong>of</strong> human resource
management permits <strong>the</strong> organization to make investments not only in individuals but also in
interpersonal relationship formation as well.
4.1 Limitations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research
There are limitations in <strong>the</strong> design and administration <strong>of</strong> this study that need to be identified. The data
collected reflects <strong>the</strong> subjective assessments <strong>of</strong> nurse managers and thus captures <strong>the</strong>ir innate
biases. Because <strong>the</strong> dataset is assembled from a single source, common method variance has <strong>the</strong>
potential to confound results. We have attempted to minimize this bias by asking factually-based
questions wherever possible.
Social capital is a complex phenomenon that reflects individual as well as group benefits. Our
measure <strong>of</strong> social capital, a simple five-item measure, may not be broad enough to fully capture <strong>the</strong>
multi-dimensional nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> concept. For instance, our measure appears to focus more on certain
aspects <strong>of</strong> social capital (ie. friendship, goodwill, associability) and less on o<strong>the</strong>r aspects (ie. trust,
reciprocity). It also may not adequately account for <strong>the</strong> density <strong>of</strong> workplace social networks. Although
our measure has been used in previously published empirical studies, fur<strong>the</strong>r research should be
done with a more refined and exacting measure <strong>of</strong> employee workplace social capital.
The conceptualization and measurement <strong>of</strong> formal organizational change and development programs
is problematic. For instance, managers in our study may have very different understandings <strong>of</strong> what
constitutes, for instance, nurse cross-training, redesigned nursing jobs, or automation <strong>of</strong> nursing work
376