Pay, Position, and Partnership: Exploring Capital Resources Among a School District Leadership Team

  • Alan J. Daly
  • Yi-Hwa Liou
  • Peter BjorklundJr


Social science literature suggests that social networks play an important role in developing human and social capital, particularly in the education space. Human capital refers to the knowledge, training, experience, and perceptions that reside within an individual, and social capital reflects the resources that are generated from the social interactions of individual actors. While most studies in education focus on either human or social capital of educators in schools, very little attention has been paid to the idea of “intellectual capital,” which includes the interactions between human and social capital. Further, even less attention has been paid to the intellectual capital among school leaders, particularly in social settings that involve a high degree of human interaction. In addition to intellectual capital, we explore a more traditional form of capital, that of financial capital in the form of salary. This chapter attempts to fill this gap by exploring intellectual capital in the form of human (demographics and perceptions) and social capital and its relationship with actors’ salary, gender, and the level of organizational commitment. The study takes place in one large urban fringe school district with 29 schools serving diverse student populations in southern California. We collected data from all 29 principals, including social network data, demographics, perceptions of organizational commitment, and publicly available salary information. Key findings suggest that principals’ network positions vary by salary and by gender. Specifically, those principals with higher salaries are less likely to be connected with their principal colleagues. Male principals are more likely to have more mutual ties than female principals. For male principals, regardless of salary, their level of mutual ties was much greater when they also reported more organizational commitment. This chapter adds to the existing knowledge base around organizational network studies and sheds new light on educational leadership.


Social network Closeness Reciprocity Leadership Organizational commitment 


  1. 1.
    Meyerson, E. M. (1994). Human capital, social capital and compensation: the relative contribution of social contacts to managers' incomes. Acta Sociologica, 37(4), 383–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boxman, E. A., De Graaf, P. M., & Flap, H. D. (1991). The impact of social and human capital on the income attainment of Dutch managers. Social networks, 13(1), 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of management review, 23(2), 242–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin, N. (2009). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action (8th ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liou, Y.-H., & Daly, A. J. (2014). Closer to learning: Social networks, trust, and professional communities. Journal of School Leadership, 24(4), 753–795.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lincoln, J., & Miller, J. (1979). Work and friendship ties in organizations: A comparative analysis of relational networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American sociological review, 370–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burt, R. S. (1976). Positions in networks. Social Forces, 55, 93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative science quarterly, 518–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ronchetto Jr, J. R., Hutt, M. D., & Reingen, P. H. (1989). Embedded influence patterns in organizational buying systems. The Journal of Marketing, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Friedkin, N. E. (1993). Structural bases of interpersonal influence in groups: A longitudinal case study. American Sociological Review, 861–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bond, E. U., Walker, B. A., Hutt, M. D., & Reingen, P. H. (2004). Reputational effectiveness in cross-functional working relationships. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(1), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations. In Barry M. S., & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 169–211). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Becker, G. S. (1992). The economic way of looking at life. Nobel Lecture, Chicago.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Becker, G. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education. New York, NY: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lindbeck, A. (1992). Macroeconomic theory and the labor market. European Economic Review, 36(2–3), 209–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. C. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(1), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Williamson, O. (1993). Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. The Journal of Law & Economics, 36(1), 453–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dasgupta, P. (2000). Trust as a commodity. In Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 49–72). Department of Sociology, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1994). Further assessments of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of applied psychology, 79(1), 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological bulletin, 108(2), 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pittinsky, T. L., & Shih, M. J. (2004). Knowledge nomads: Organizational commitment and worker mobility in positive perspective. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 791–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bashaw, R. E., & Grant, E. S. (1994). Exploring the distinctive nature of work commitments: Their relationships with personal characteristics, job performance, and propensity to leave. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 14(2), 41–56.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. E. (2007). Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gittell, J. H., Cameron, K., Lim, S., & Rivas, V. (2006). Relationships, layoffs, and organizational resilience: Airline industry responses to September 11. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(3), 300–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dittes, J. E., & Kelley, H. H. (1956). Effects of different conditions of acceptance upon conformity to group norms. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53(1), 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee, J., & Kim, S. (2011). Exploring the role of social networks in affective organizational commitment: Network centrality, strength of ties, and structural holes. The American Review of Public Administration, 41(2), 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of management journal, 47(6), 795–817.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2(1), 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of vocational behavior, 14(2), 224–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mottaz, C. J. (1987). Age and work satisfaction. Work and Occupations, 14(3), 387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mottaz, C. J. (1989). An analysis of the relationship between attitudinal commitment and behavioral commitment. The Sociological Quarterly, 30(1), 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roberts, K. H., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1979). Some correlations of communication roles in organizations. Academy of management journal, 22(1), 42–57.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brass, D. J. (1981). Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker satisfaction and performance. Administrative science quarterly, 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L. W. (1986). The snowball effect: Turnover embedded in communication networks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hartman, R. L., & Johnson, J. D. (1989). Social contagion and multiplexity communication networks as predictors of commitment and role ambiguity. Human Communication Research, 15(4), 523–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wagner, W. G., Pfeffer, J., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1984). Organizational demography and turnover in top-management group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    McPherson, J. M., Popielarz, P. A., & Drobnic, S. (1992). Social networks and organizational dynamics. American sociological review, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hultin, M., & Szulkin, R. (1999). Wages and unequal access to organizational power: An empirical test of gender discrimination. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), 453–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication networks: toward a new paradigm for research. New York, NY: Free PressGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Brass, D. J. (1985). Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy of Management journal, 28(2), 327–343.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 673–703.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Moore, G. (1990). Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks. American Sociological Review, 726–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pugliesi, K., & Shook, S. L. (1998). Gender, ethnicity, and network characteristics: Variation in social support resources. Sex Roles, 38(3–4), 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Heyl, E. (1996). Het docentennetwerk. Structuur en invloed van collegiale contacten binnen scholen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Twente, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology, 27(1), 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (1), 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fischer, C. S., & Oliker, S. J. (1983). A research note on friendship, gender, and the life cycle. Social Forces, 62, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Marsden, P. V. (1987). Core discussion networks of Americans. American sociological review, 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 37, 422–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The role of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Daly, A. J., Liou, Y., Tran, N. A., Cornelissen, F., & Park, V. (2014). The rise of neurotics: Social networks, leadership, and efficacy in district reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 233–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cervone, H. F. (2008). Breaking out of Sacred Cow culture: The relationship of professional advice networks to receptivity to innovation in academic librarians. In Williams, D. & Golden, J., Advances in library administration and organization (Vol. 26, pp. 71–149).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for school improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M.G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. In R.I. Sutton & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour (pp. 345–423). Greenwich, CT: JAI press.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Fearon, C., McLaughlin, H., & Morris, L. (2013). Conceptualising work engagement: An individual, collective and organisational efficacy perspective. European journal of training and development, 37(3), 244–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Pfeffer, J. (1989). A political perspective on careers: Interests, networks, and environments. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 380–396). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ely, R. J. (1995). The power in demography: Women’s social constructions of gender identity at work. Academy of Management journal, 38(3), 589–634.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Turner, J. C., Sachdev, I., & Hogg, M. A. (1983). Social categorization, interpersonal attraction and group formation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22(3), 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 596–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan J. Daly
    • 1
  • Yi-Hwa Liou
    • 2
  • Peter BjorklundJr
    • 1
  1. 1.University of California, San DiegoSan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.National Taipei University of EducationTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations