SOCIAL CAPITAL AND THE LEARNING ORGANISATION: A SOUTH
AFRICAN CASE OF INSIDE-OUT LEARNING
Ken Dovey and Jenny Onyx
2
Introduction
The potential for conflict within diverse and unequal societies, as the gap between rich
and poor widens during the current era of global corporate capitalism, has invoked
considerable interest in the concept of ‘social capital’ as the raw material with which
civil society is built. Recently instated to join financial capital and human capital as
part of a trinity of key ingredients required for an economically successful and stable
democratic state, social capital has become a topic of increasing interest in recent
research (see, for example, Putnam, 1993 and 1995; Fukuyama, 1995; Bernstein et al,
1996; Gellner, 1994; Misztal, 1996; Redding, 1996; and Sabel, 1989). An important
insight that has emerged from this body of research is that while social capital is not
the property of the civic organisation, the market, or the state, all sectors can engage in
its production (Cox, 1995). This suggests that the workplace may be an important site
for the use and production of social capital.
In this paper, we will explore the concept of social capital and its relationship not only
to the development of macro-levels of civil society, but also to its component meso-
and micro-level organisations such as the workplace, the family, and community
organisations. Of particular interest to us is the dialectic between social capital as a
‘product’, and social capital as an ‘agent’ of organisational development and learning.
Furthermore we will attempt to show, through the case of learning within a South
African manufacturing organisation, that business organisations can be important
producers of social capital, especially in societies that have been traumatised by war
and oppression, as well as beneficiaries of social capital produced through the
multiplex networks of civic organisations in more stable societies.
Social Capital Defined
Social capital refers to the potential that exists ‘within’ certain kinds of relationship
between people, for ‘making things happen’ on a collective basis. Putnam (1993,
1995) referred to it as those features of social life-networks, norms, and trust that
enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives.
In the growing literature on social capital, a number of themes are emerging. All uses
of the concept refer to the existence of more or less dense interlocking networks of
3
relationships between individuals and groups: people engaging with others through a
variety of lateral associations which represent an expression of freely-formed
mutuality (Latham,1997). Social capital cannot be generated by individuals acting on
their own: it depends on a proclivity for spontaneous sociability and a capacity to form
new associations and to cooperate within collectively established terms of reference
(Fukuyama, ibid). A strong distinction is made between horizontal and vertical
relationships for wherever vertical relationships dominate, ‘citizens have some of their
rights of participation and choice replaced by the exercise of authority and control’
(Latham, ibid: 6).
The existence of social norms of voluntary cooperation and recipocral service to
others, even if it incurs a personal cost, facilitates prosocial behaviour (Reno, Cialdini,
and Kallgren, 1993). According to Coleman (1988) and Putnam (1995), there is little
crime and little need for formal policing in neighbourhoods characterised by the
existence of such norms. On the other hand, where there is a low level of trust and the
absence of norms of reciprocity and voluntary cooperation, people will cooperate in
joint action only under a system of formal rules and regulations, which have to be
negotiated, agreed to, litigated and enforced, sometimes by coercive means, leading to
expensive legal transaction costs (Fukuyama, ibid).
Trust is crucial. It allows collaboration to occur in the absence of formal sanctions and
rewards. As such, it encourages, within individuals and groups, a willingness to take
risks in a social context based on the confidence that others will respond as expected
and will act in mutually supportive ways, or at least that others do not intend harm.
Misztal (ibid) identifies three forms of trust to match three forms of social order: stable
order requires trust in the predicability, reliability and legibility of the social reality;
cohesive order involves trust based on familiarity, bonds of friendship and common
faith and values; and collaborative order involves trust as a device for coping with the
freedom of others.
Social capital draws much of its philosophical underpinning from a communitarian
position (Etzioni, 1988; Taylor, 1982). As Etzioni (ibid: 9) states ‘the individual and
the community make each other and require each other’. The individual is motivated,
4
not by utilitarian self interest but by a complex of integrated communal and individual
goals, or what is usually referred to as ‘the common good’.
The Relationship between Social Capital and the workplace
While little attention has thus far been directed at social capital within the workplace,
it could be argued that the workplace may be an important potential source of its
production. That this is so was empirically demonstrated in a recent Australian study
by Onyx and Bullen (1998). A factor analysis of 85 social capital items in a sample of
717 workers identified a strong general social capital factor, which included relations
within the workplace, as well as a specific social capital factor relating to the
workplace. The study pointed towards a conceptual link between social capital and
what has been identified in the literature as oganisational citizenship (Organ, 1988,
1990; Schnake, 1991; Van Dyne et al, 1994). In reviewing this literature, Schnake
(ibid: ) defines organizational citizenship as:
functional, extra-role, prosocial organizational behaviors, directed at
individuals, groups, and/ or an organisation. These are helping behaviors
not formally prescribed by the organization and for which there are no
direct rewards or punishments.
Van Dyne et al (ibid) argue that good citizenship within the organisation is mediated
by a covenantal relationship which is characterized by open-ended commitment,
mutual trust and shared values. A covenantal relationship is quite different to an
exchange contract: the latter is an explicit agreement about the fair exchange of goods
and services; the former is 'not a bargain but a pledge'. It is a long-term commitment,
based on perceptions of mutuality and reciprocity. The more strongly a person
identifies with the collective entity; feels valued; and values the connection, the less
that person will rely on legal sanctions to resolve difficulties and the more he or she
will contribute actively to the well-being of the organisation. Such a contribution may
include the contestation of ideas and actions taken by others, and may be adversarial
at times, but it will always occur within a framework of assumptions about the ‘shared
destiny’ of the members of the organisation. Thus social capital and organisational
citizenship appear to be related, both conceptually and empirically
5
The central dimensions of social capital - trust; norms of reciprocity and voluntary
cooperation; networks of mutual obligation; and the value of the common good - are
also central features of the team, or task, culture advocated as an ideal for learning
organisations (Kofman and Senge, 1993; Dovey, 1997a). Within team cultures,
behavioural norms are oriented around collective, as opposed to individual, goals and
the generation of spirit, through which teams achieve levels of committed
performance far beyond those possible from individuals working alone. Such ‘team
spirit’ is a direct function of the strength of the relationship bonds established between
team members, and of the depth of meaning that the organisational goals have for the
lives of the team members. High performance organisational teams are, thus, strongly
oriented around the principles of learning and sacrifice for the common good, and
feature a covenantal relationship within which all members commit to ‘winning’
together or ‘going down’ together. The development of important features of a team
culture, such as the emphasis upon relationship in learning and upon collective forums
of learning, is clearly facilitated by the existence of high levels of social capital within
the organisational community.
The role of learning organisations in the transmission of ‘internally’ generated social
capital and learning to family and broader community settings, however, is seldom
addressed. Much of the literature assumes business and industrial organisations to be
‘stand alone’ settings within which members’ behaviour is relatively unaffected by
their experience in family, community and societal contexts. At best, some
recognition is given in the literature to the ‘outside-in’ dimension of learning through
the broad contribution that a ‘learning society’ (see Senesh, 1991) makes to the
development of human and social capital; and in the acknowledgement of the
influence of mental models - sets of assumptions about ‘self’, ‘others’, and ‘how the
world works’ that individuals acquire tacitly in the various contexts of their life
experience - upon workplace behaviour (see Argyris, 1990). Generally, however, the
potential of those workplaces aspiring towards learning organisation status to reverse
the direction of influence, that is to transform behaviour within the families and
community organisations of their members, and thereby contribute to the building of a
strong civil society, has not been considered. Through this paper, we are attempting
to show that the social context of the workplace is interconnected with the broader