In this blog post, we will explore how relationships between people, or social networks, affect employment.

Overview of social network theory

Social network theory views society not as a simple collection of individuals, but as a totality of relationships and interactions between people. In other words, the relationships between individuals form a structure, and this structure is society.
This collection of relationships is called a “social network,” which can be defined and analyzed in various ways. Specifically, social networks are composed of actors, or “nodes,” and the relationships between them, or “links.” The patterns of relationships formed between actors constitute the essence of a network.
On the other hand, areas within a network where no direct connections are formed between nodes are called “structural holes,” which can act as important factors influencing the flow of information and resources within the network.
Networks are not merely the result of human relationships woven together like a net. Within them, various forms of “network effects” occur.
These include the sharing of information and opportunities, mutual control among members, social approval, cooperation, and the formation of bonds. Such network effects provide tangible benefits to members, which in turn motivate them to continue participating in the network. One of the key sources of these network effects is the distinction and discrimination that exist between members and non-members of the network. In other words, people who belong to a particular network enjoy more resources and opportunities than those who are not members of that network or have limited access to it. These resources can vary, including wealth, power, reputation, and information, which enable members to take advantage of the structural benefits of the network. However, for the network effect to work properly, there must be a clear boundary between those who belong to the network and those who do not.
In other words, the more distinct and closed the identity of a network is, the more solid the privileges enjoyed by its members become. However, this closed nature is a double-edged sword. If the existence of the network is clearly recognized by non-members or considered unjust, its effects may be weakened or even backfire.
For example, if a network blatantly reveals the differences between its members and non-members, and these differences become a social issue, external actors may respond by forming a “counter-network.” This can take the form of active challenges to the existing network, or passive disobedience or emotional resistance.
As such, the effects of networks constantly create tension between their structural closedness and social legitimacy. Another key source of network effects is mutual recognition among members within the network. Social networks are not merely channels of information and structural devices, but also the emotional and symbolic foundation of human relationships.
Members recognize each other within the network, exchange opinions, build trust, and cooperate toward common goals. Through this process, the network acquires a single “identity,” and members exercise voluntary control and self-regulation to maintain it.
However, if such internal control becomes too strong, free communication between members becomes rigid, which reduces the flexibility of the network and can lead to the division or fragmentation of the entire network. Such structural divisions are one of the main causes of the weakening of network effects and often occur when networks are overly exclusive or closed.

Application of social network theory: Job search and employment cases

Social network theory is not just an abstract theory, but can be applied to various practical areas. In particular, this theory is very useful in labor market analysis, such as job search and employment.
American sociologist Mark Granovetter conducted an empirical study of the job search activities of people engaged in professional and managerial occupations in the Boston area.
According to his research, people did not simply submit resumes or apply for jobs through advertisements, but rather utilized various social networks to find employment. In other words, social networks play an important role as a conduit and facilitator in the employment process. Granovetter emphasized that “weak ties” can be a more effective means of job search than “strong ties.” Here, strong ties refer to relationships that are intimate, emotionally strong, and involve frequent mutual assistance, while weak ties refer to relationships that are the opposite of these, with low intimacy, weak persistence, and relatively infrequent mutual assistance. Granovetter believed that weak ties provide access to a wider range of social resources.
Strong ties are mainly shared with people who have similar information environments, so the possibility of receiving new information is low. On the other hand, weak ties are connected to various social groups and can serve as a channel for job seekers to obtain information that they could not access before. In particular, weak ties have a structural advantage that benefits both job seekers and employers by providing non-duplicative sources of information.
On the other hand, the employment process in Korean society is somewhat different. According to one study, in Korea, for professional and managerial positions, formal channels such as open recruitment exams are used more often than job hunting through personal networks. This means that the more highly educated people are, the more they tend to seek employment through formal and objective procedures rather than relying on social networks.
On the other hand, in the case of production workers, it was found that the overwhelming majority of jobs were obtained through personal connections or acquaintances, i.e., informal channels. In addition, it was found that social networks have a much greater influence than formal job search channels even for simple clerical and manual jobs.
These differences are deeply related to the characteristics of the employment structure and education system in South Korean society. Researchers point out that there is a clear hierarchical structure in Korean society, and at the same time, the schools and majors of preferred job seekers are also socially ranked. In other words, although the size and reputation of a company are publicly available information, employers tend to use the schools and majors of job seekers as a “signal” to judge their abilities and integrity. Given this reality, highly educated people rely on the formal signaling system to which they belong and seek employment through objective indicators such as exams and academic qualifications rather than through networks.

Conclusion: The social significance and challenges of networks

Social network theory provides a powerful analytical framework for understanding human society. It allows us to view society not as a mere collection of individuals, but as a structure of relationships, and to explain various issues that arise within it, such as interactions, the flow of resources, the distribution of power, and social exclusion, in an integrated manner.
In particular, by applying network theory to practical issues such as job hunting, we can analyze more precisely how social resources are distributed and how inequality is reproduced. Networks can be a means of providing opportunities and resources to their members, but they can also act as a structure of exclusion and discrimination for outsiders. This duality is the essence of the social effects of networks, and we must continue to analyze and reflect on how and under what conditions these effects operate.
The task ahead is to seek ways to ensure that social networks do not merely serve as a means of exclusive power, but evolve into a more open and inclusive form. Furthermore, a multi-layered perspective is needed to recognize the existence of various networks and to look at the new possibilities and countervailing forces that arise from them. In this way, social networks can go beyond being mere analytical tools and serve as a theoretical foundation for designing a better society.