Elsevier

Social Networks

Volume 34, Issue 2, May 2012, Pages 181-192
Social Networks

Don’t mention it: Why people don’t share job information, when they do, and why it matters

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2011.11.002Get rights and content

Abstract

Network-based job search is especially likely to foster workplace segregation and limit status attainment when information flows through homophilous ties. This paper takes the perspective of information holders and examines how the use of strong versus weak ties – which tend to be homophilous and heterophilous, respectively – differs with characteristics of labour markets in which jobs are located. Using in-depth interviews with entry-level white collar workers I show that information holders with opportunities to mention specific jobs to specific people do so only 27% of the time. Because they hesitate to share information if they are uncertain the information is specifically sought, information flows more commonly to strong ties, whose career goals are more likely to be known. Information is more likely to be shared with weak ties if it concerns occupations for which one may be specifically credentialed, since receiving relevant training serves as signal of interest in such jobs. These finding suggest that the homophily of referrals and their inequality-generating effects may vary across occupations.

Highlights

► Examines when people share job info with potential applicants in their networks. ► Information holders share job information only 27% of the time. ► Info sharing is more common when potential applicants are strong ties. ► Sharing info with weak ties is more likely in closed labour markets than in open ones.

Introduction

The use of social networks in the labour market has been frequently implicated in the creation and re-creation of inequality. Research on the mechanisms linking network-based job searches to inequality suggests that network-based job search is especially likely to foster workplace segregation and limit status attainment when information flows through homophilous ties. This paper takes the perspective of information holders and examines how the use of strong versus weak ties – which tend to be homophilous and heterophilous, respectively (Lawrence, 2006, Mollenhorst et al., 2008) – varies with characteristics of labour markets in which jobs are located.

While several scholars have explained the use of strong and weak ties in the labour market by theorizing about the types of ties or types of networks that hold the most information, the flow of job information cannot be explained simply by the resource content of networks. Information available through social networks only makes it to job seekers when information holders choose to share it. Therefore, a full explanation requires an account of the ways in which information holders exercise agency in deciding what to do with this information (Emirbayer and Goodwin, 1994). Theories of how information holders make decisions to share or withhold job information are implicit in much of the research on the use of social networks in job search and recruitment; however, research collecting data on this subject directly from information holders is scarce (See Smith, 2005, Smith, 2007 for a notable exception). While arguing that network-based recruiting helps organizations and job seekers deal with imperfect information in the labour market, the literature has failed to problematize the ways in which potential referrers must also deal with imperfect information to evaluate their network members’ aptitudes and interests. This paper studies information holders directly to understand when they share and withhold information, why they make the choices they do, and to show that information holders’ decision-making process affects the likelihood of sharing information with strong and weak ties differently in different labour markets.

These findings are based on a study that addresses when and why information holders share or withhold information using in-depth interviews in which information holders discussed specific job openings of which they had been aware. Information sharing is the dependent variable, holding constant both knowledge of job information and connections to potential applicants. This approach allows the study of not only the successful information flow captured in job seeker and job applicant studies (Granovetter, 1973, Granovetter, 1974, Lin et al., 1981a, Lin et al., 1981b, Fernandez and Weinberg, 1997), but also instances in which job information was not shared or not shared with particular network members.

Information holders in this study with opportunities to mention job openings to their network members do so only 27% of the time. Consistent with theories explicit and implicit in the literature, information holders wish to be helpful to their network members and are concerned with their reputations and thus with evaluating their network members likely performance in a job opening (Granovetter, 1973, Smith, 2005, Smith, 2007, Fernandez and Weinberg, 1997). In this population, both of these factors promote information sharing. However, information flow is hindered by information holders’ reluctance to appear intrusive by offering unsolicited career advice. As a result, they report that they do not share information if they do not know their network member to be looking for that job and they do not share information unless the topic of job openings comes up in conversation. The conditions that favour information flow vary with tie strength and with the extent to which occupations are open to people with a wide variety of work and education backgrounds. As a result, the likelihood of information sharing is similarly structured: information sharing is more likely to be shared with strong ties or with weak ties when occupations are tightly linked to specific educational backgrounds. This in turn has implications for the ways in which, and the conditions under which, network-based hiring is likely to be linked to status attainment and workplace segregation.

Section snippets

Social networks, job search and inequality

Social networks are an important source of job information for job seekers and job changers (Granovetter, 1973, Granovetter, 1974, Granovetter, 1995, Lin et al., 1981b, Marsden and Gorman, 2001, McDonald, 2005, McDonald and Elder, 2006). Approximately half of job changers first learned of their jobs from a network member and about half of job seekers use their networks in searching for jobs (Marsden and Gorman, 2001). More importantly, organizational research on hiring has shown that job

Choosing to tell

The literature suggests two explanations of when and why information holders choose to share information. The first treats information exchange as a low-cost and relatively risk-free method of doing a friend a favour (Granovetter, 1974) or building relationships with possibilities for reciprocity or mutual benefit (Finlay and Coverdill, 2002, Fernandez and Castilla, 2001, Bian, 1997). Understood in this way, there is little reason to view information sharing as problematic; given knowledge of

Decision-making, tie strength and occupations

Understanding the withholding of information under circumstances were concerns for reputations are less salient requires an appreciation of network tie strength and labour market characteristics. Before mentioning a job opening, information holders must not only identify potential applicants among their network members but also determine whether or not their network members will welcome the available information. The ability to determine network members’ interest in job openings will vary with

Methods

To understand information holders’ decision-making, I treat information flow as a multi-stage process: people learn about job openings and thereby become information holders. They then identify people from within their networks to whom a particular piece of job information might be relevant. Only at this point can information holders make a decision to share or withhold information.2

Opportunities to share information and actual information sharing

As expected, every insurance agent interviewed had been aware of job openings in the past year. A few respondents mentioned that they had likely known of additional job openings which they could not recall during the interview. However, the patterns that these memory lapses are likely to follow are consistent with the findings reported here. Information holders are more likely to forget to list job openings that they did not associate with anyone, and more likely to forget job openings that

Information sharing and tie strength

Information holders base their decisions to share or withhold information on their desire to help their network members, on their concern for their own reputations, on a reluctance to appear intrusive or to initiate contact for the purpose of sharing job information, and on fears of awkwardness that might result from a negative outcome. Each of these reasons should favour information sharing with strong ties over weak ties. Gauging a network members’ likely interest in jobs or particular jobs

Discussion

Every insurance agent interviewed knew of job openings and could identify network members they could see filling some of those jobs. Most of the time they did not mention the job opening to potential applicants. This finding is unexpected given that the methods frequently used to study and theorize networks and job search rely on the implicit assumption that information available through networks is accessed unproblematically, and given the understanding that sharing job information is a

Conclusion

Understanding why information holders choose to share or withhold information is key to understanding when they share information with strong versus weak ties, which is in turn important for predicting the effects of network-based hiring on workplace segregation and status attainment. I collected unique data directly from information holders tracing their treatment of specific pieces of job information. I show that opportunities to share job information are common, but actually mentioning job

Acknowledgements

In conducting this research and writing this article I have profited enormously from resources accessed through my social network. In particular, I am grateful to Peter Marsden for his advice and extensive feedback throughout this project and to him, David Gibson and Roberto Fernandez for helping to shape my thinking on this research and on social networks more generally. This article has benefited greatly from the comments of Bonnie Erickson, Roberto Fernandez, Sherri Klassen, Wendy Roth,

References (71)

  • W. Bridges et al.

    Informal hiring and income in the labor market

    American Sociological Review

    (1986)
  • R. Burt

    Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition

    (1992)
  • E. Castilla

    Social networks and employee performance in a call center

    American Journal of Sociology

    (2005)
  • P. Drentea

    Consequences of women's formal and informal job search methods for employment in female-dominated jobs

    Gender and Society

    (1998)
  • J.R. Elliot

    Referral hiring and ethnically homogenous jobs: how prevalent is the connection and for whom

    Social Science Research

    (2001)
  • M. Emirbayer et al.

    Network analysis. Culture, and the problem of agency

    American Journal of Sociology

    (1994)
  • B.H. Erickson

    The structure of ignorance

    Connections

    (1996)
  • R. Fernandez et al.

    How much is that network worth? Social capital in employee referral networks

  • R.M. Fernandez et al.

    Social capital at work: networks and employment at a phone center

    American Journal of Sociology

    (2000)
  • R.M. Fernandez et al.

    Networks, race, and hiring

    American Sociological Review

    (2006)
  • R.M. Fernandez et al.

    Gendering the job

    American Journal of Sociology

    (2005)
  • R.M. Fernandez et al.

    Sifting and sorting: personal contacts and hiring in a retail bank

    American Sociological Review

    (1997)
  • W. Finlay et al.

    Headhunters: Matchmaking in the Labor Market

    (2002)
  • C.S. Fischer

    To Dwell Among Friends

    (1982)
  • D.R. Gibson

    Concurrency and commitment: network scheduling and its consequences for diffusion

    The Journal of Mathematical Sociology

    (2005)
  • M. Granovetter

    The strength of weak ties

    American Journal of Sociology

    (1973)
  • M. Granovetter

    Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers

    (1974)
  • M. Granovetter

    Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers

    (1995)
  • M. Grieco

    Keeping it in the Family: Social Networks and Employment Chance

    (1987)
  • S. Hanson et al.

    Job search and the occupational segregation of women

    Annals of the Association of American Geographers

    (1991)
  • J.P. Kirnan et al.

    The relationship between recruiting source, applicant quality, and hire performance: an analysis by sex, ethnicity, and age

    Personal Psychology

    (1989)
  • J. Kmec et al.

    Making gender fit and “Correcting” gender misfits

    Gender & Society

    (2010)
  • B. Lawrence

    Organizational reference groups: a missing perspective on social context

    Organization Science

    (2006)
  • N. Lin

    Social networks and status attainment

    Annual Review of Sociology

    (1999)
  • N. Lin

    Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action

    (2001)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text