1.3: Lab - Social and Symbolic Capital

Forms of Capital - a store of useful key assets or advantages

The term ‘capital’ is used by analogy with other forms of ‘economic’ capital – such as ‘money’, as social capital is argued to have similar (although less measurable) benefits. However, the analogy with capital is misleading to the extent that, unlike traditional forms of capital, social capital is not depleted by use; in fact it is depleted by non-use (use it or lose it). In this respect, it is similar to the now well-established economic concept of human capital.

The theory is simple and quite similar to using ‘money’ you have to buy the things you want or need. You will enter the organization with a certain amount of social capital, your social ability, and symbolic capital, your work experience and knowledge, and your goal is to utilize that personal capital to gain ‘capitals’ that the organization possesses for later use. Obviously, the goals of a sophomore would not be as refined as the goals of a senior. There is an old saying: from those who have more - more is expected.

Using Personal Capital to Gain Organizational Capital

Intellectual Capital

Intellectual capital is the intangible value of a business, covering its people (human capital), the value relating to its relationships (relational capital), and everything that is left when the employees go home, (structural capital), of which intellectual property (IP) is but one component. It is the ‘sum total’ of everything everyone in a company knows that gives it a competitive edge.

Intellectual capital has the following general classification:

Human capital

Human capital is the stock of habits, knowledge, social and personality attributes (including creativity) embodied in a person’s ability to perform labor producing economic value. Human capital is unique and differs from any other capital. It is an important asset to possess for companies to achieve goals, develop products, and remain innovative. Companies can invest in human capital for example, through education and training enabling improved levels of quality and production.

Human capital then, is the value that the employees of a business provide through the application of skills, knowledge and expertise. Human capital is an organization’s combined human capability for solving business problems and exploiting its intellectual property. Human capital is inherent in people and cannot be owned by an organization. Therefore, human capital can leave an organization when people leave, and if the management has failed to provide a setting where others can pick up their know-how. Human capital also encompasses how effectively an organization uses its people resources as measured by creativity and innovation.

Structural Capital

Structural capital, the supportive non-physical infrastructure, processes and databases of the organization that enable human capital to function. Structural capital includes processes, patents, and trademarks, as well as the organization’s image, organization, information system, and proprietary software and databases. Because of its diverse components, structural capital can be classified further into ‘organization’, ‘process’, and ‘innovation’ capital.

• Organizational capital includes the organization philosophy and systems for leveraging the organization’s capability.
• Process capital includes the techniques, procedures, and programs that implement and enhance the delivery of goods and services.
• Innovation capital includes intellectual property such as patents, trademarks and copyrights, and intangible assets.
• Intellectual properties are protected commercial rights such as patents, trade secrets, copyrights and trademarks. Intangible assets are all of the other talents and theory by which run an organization.

Structural capital is one of the three primary components of intellectual capital, and consists of the supportive infrastructure, processes, and databases of the organization that enable human capital to function. Structural capital is owned by an organization and remains with an organization even when people leave. It includes: capabilities, routines, methods, procedures and methodologies embedded in organization. Structural capital is the supportive non-physical infrastructure that enables human capital to function.

Relational capital, consisting of such elements as customer relationships, supplier relationships, trademarks and trade names (which have value only by virtue of customer relationships) licenses, and franchises. The notion that customer capital is separate from human and structural capital indicates its central importance to an organization’s worth. The value of the relationships a business maintains with its customers and suppliers is also referred as goodwill, but often poorly booked in corporate accounts, because of accounting rules.

Social Capital Theory – your ability to develop human relationships

Woolcock (2001) defined social capital as the stocks of social trust, norms and networks that people access to solve joint problems. Interrelationships and connectivity between humans are central to the formation of social capital, hence why it is often described as the glue that holds society together (Murphy, 200 source 4). In recent years, driven by fears over fragmentation of communities and a generalized decline in civic engagement (Foley et al., 2011) social capital has moved up the political agenda in democratic societies. It is, however, a complicated and contested concept with differing interpretations of its meaning and usefulness (Quinn, 2013).

Coleman (1998) defines social capital by its functions and views it as a resource that can be drawn upon collectively. Its presence encourages certain actions, which facilitate the accomplishment of mutually beneficial ends. Moreover,'' social capital in the family and community play a crucial role in creating human capital (defined as individual skills and abilities in the next generation). Like Coleman, Bourdieu (1985) presents a sociological view of social capital, but he views it primarily as a resource for individuals. He defined social capital as 'the aggregate of the actual or potential resources, which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition' (Bourdieu, 1985 p248).

Like Coleman (1998), Putnam (1995) underlines the collective dimensions of social capital, defining it as 'features of social organization such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate co-ordination and cooperation for mutual benefit'. Putnam (1993) argued that the quality of life in societies and their economic sustainability was directly attributable to the features of social organization. He suggested that the hallmarks of a successful society depended upon core attributes of human relationships, the presence or absence of trust, the expectation of reciprocity and the existence of networks. A basic premise underpinning the work of these three theorists, and indeed social capital theory in general, is that investment in social relations is expected to yield a whole series of returns in the marketplace and beyond.

Bonding and Bridging Capital – internal & external relationships

A distinction between bonding (exclusive) and bridging (inclusive) forms of social capital is widely made in the literature. Putnam {1993) explains that bonding social capital is inward looking and characterized by strong ties that reinforce exclusive identities, promote homogeneity and create strong in-group loyalty; whereas bridging social capital is outward looking, involves weaker ties and promotes links between diverse individuals and groups. Putnam suggests that many groups simultaneously bond across some social dimensions and bridge across others. In general, the dominant sense is that social capital is a force for good. However, Leonard (2004) has problematized the fact that policy-makers, seeing how social capital can potentially be converted into other forms of capital, often consider it as a quick-fix solution to complex, long-term structural problems. Indeed, viewing social capital as a 'quick-fix' and a panacea for all social ills is a noted criticism levelled at social capital theorists. Putnam's work in particular has been criticized for romanticizing 'the world we have lost' and ignoring the downside of community life.

Overtime, the growing social capital literature has developed a more critical lens, which acknowledge the inadequacies of the basic framework without abandoning the concept altogether (Muir 20 source 10}. For example, in their critique of Putnam's work, Portes and Landolt (1996) discuss how in, some cases, social capital can constrain individuals' actions and choices. This is because while social capital can promote access to resources, it can equally deny or limit such access.

A number of researchers have taken up this theme. Pickering (2006), writing about ethnically diverse societies transitioning away from conflict, discusses how social capital can threaten democracy. While strong ties foster high levels of trust and connect groups of people together through bonding capital, they can simultaneously serve to deepen the divisions, differences and lack of trust that separate groups from other cohorts. Leonard {2004) makes a very similar case in respect of politically contentious societies, arguing that trust within tightly bonded communities at local level may engender distrust of wider institutions, reinforcing 'them versus us' mentalities, as it were.

Given that the acknowledged value of social capital lies in the access it can afford to networks, resources and information that help advance the life chances of the actors and community groups involved, the value of having open, diverse and inclusive relationships that link outwards to other resources is critical. Thus for Dale and Newman {2008) the value of what is referred to as bridging capital cannot be over-emphasized. They conceive of bridging capital as relationship building which leads to accessing external resources, and links with others who move in different circles (Wilks, 2011). Although Blackshaw and Long, (2005) were criticized for being over simplistic thinking of social capital in terms of bonding and bridging, they present a useful theoretical framework upon which to base this study which empirically considers the workings of social capital in event contexts.

Social capital is a concept that is widely used across disciplines and within political discourse to theorize the processes that operate within communities from the local to the global. It relates to the social relations between humans and in particular, how the interrelationships between humans lead to the accumulation of certain benefits that are of value both to them individually and to the communities to which they belong (Quinn, 2013). Over the last ten years or so policy makers and politicians across the world have shown increasing interest in how the components of social capital - networks, shared values and trust - can be enhanced at a local, regional and national level (Muir, 2011). One area that has been targeted because of its potential to build social capital is the events industry. Smith {2012), for instance, discusses how the idea of building social capital and achieving greater community cohesion are now noted objectives of many restaurant event strategies.

Symbolic Capital – education and physical abilities

Symbolic capital might best be described as ‘status attained’ with regard to education and practical work experience within and external to the culinary program. Practical experience proves most helpful to internship outcomes because such experience allow the student to accurately judge his or her capability to apply practical experience to classroom and laboratory learning and also in determining strengths and weaknesses in their ability to physically perform to the standards of a selected site. In essence, they have the experience to better prepare themselves and more accurately judge ‘goodness of fit’ issues as they relate of site selection as opposed to those students with little to no practical experience.

A History of Work Experience. Deciding what information would or could be learned should be carefully thought out well in advance and is often the result of years of thinking for most of the student interns who excelled prior to, during, and after an internship experience. They accurately assessed their ability by seeking unbiased assessment from others in their cohort, from their teachers, and, of importance, from the professional culinary mentors for whom they worked. These students either possessed or developed an innate sense of “Who am I? What is my skill set? Where am I now? Where do I want to be? Moreover, what steps do I need to take to achieve my goals?

The Five people you need to make friends with at work

Because it's what you know 'and' who you know.

If you work at least 40 hours a week, you spend more time with your co-workers than your friends and family so it’s worthwhile to have good work relationships. In fact, a recent survey found that people with work friends are nearly three times more likely to say they love their companies.

“You don't have to be best friends [with your co-workers], but being polite, respectful, engaging, and on the ball is critical to your ongoing success. Your demeanor and relationships often count at least as much, if not more at times, than the work product itself. If people enjoy working with you, you are more likely to get additional opportunities.

It can seem transactional or opportunistic to create a strategy for forging work friendships, but there are some people that should be at the top of your ‘work friends’ wish list.

Your boss

Get to know more about your boss than the fact that they always assigns time-sensitive projects at 5 p.m. that are expected to be completed by 9 a.m. the next day, or that they has very strong feelings about punctuation in written reports. Your boss is, after all, a person.

So how do you become work friends with your boss without overstepping? Start by getting to know your boss’s professional goals and outlook. Ask what they are working on and showing interest in the business as a whole—not just your own role and career trajectory. They will appreciate that you are curious about the bigger picture, and you might get some helpful ‘hints’ about their priorities and business objectives. If you can get along with and actually like your boss, you are more likely to enjoy work, thrive, and find additional opportunities.

When it comes time for reviews, raises, and promotions, your boss’s feedback matters the most because she's the person who works closest with you—so it’s crucial that she likes the work you do and working with you.

If you regularly interact with your boss’s boss, become friendly with him too. You never know when your immediate manager might leave or be promoted, so keeping the person above them aware of the impact you are having will help when it comes to decisions being made if your boss were to leave.

The power brokers

Instead of viewing peers as direct competitors, focus on collaboration because that way you’ll do better work, faster. In addition, try not to be jealous or extra-competitive with your peers who seem to be on the “fast track.”

A natural inclination at work may be to feel threatened by someone with high talent who is already viewed as an up-and-comer. In fact, sometimes we project our own insecurities onto them and tag them with unfair judgments. That ‘scarcity mentality’ will not bring out your best. Be abundant instead and befriend the most talented, effective, high-performing colleagues in your midst.

Ask your co-workers how they are doing, learning more about their work, going to lunch instead of eating a sad desk salad and scrolling mindlessly through your Facebook newsfeed, and checking in to simply say hello. Be helpful when you work together. Be known for doing a good job. Do not complain. Be a good listener. Share insight to build trust.

The office rock star

Find someone above you whom people really respect and, ideally, whose values are similar to your own. Once you have worked anywhere for a short period, it is easy to identify the internal stars whom others listen to and follow.

Try this strategy for becoming friendly with office influencers. First, find someone you would like to learn from and emulate. Next, learn what the person is working on. Then at an upcoming company or department event, introduce yourself and ask him/her about the topic.

In the beginning, it is best to keep your communications ‘work-related’. Since the project is important to him or her, he/she will think you are someone who ‘gets it.’ You may just become an insider on her radar as new opportunities and projects open up. Having an opinion leader speak well of you is essentially a high-level testimonial. In essence, their lending you their good name.

A mentor

You might already have a mentor outside of the office, like someone who is in your industry at another company, a favorite professor, or even a family member who has great advice. But it's also beneficial to have a mentor who works at the same company as you because they’ve been there and done that.

Mentors can help with how you should be seeing the organization and how you should be thinking about the organization in order to get ahead. Your mentor could be your boss, an influencer, a peer, or someone who has the position you hope to have in a few years. Get to know them the same way you did with everyone else, but do not make it weird and ask, Will you be my mentor? It does not have to be a formal, Facebook-official relationship. It just has to be helpful.

Your staff

As you start climbing the proverbial corporate ladder, you will get your very own team to manage. The people who work for you will do a better job if they respect and like you. When you are seen as helpful, and focused on your teams' development, they will want to do better work for you.

Find out each person’s goals and help them achieve them, ask for their advice, say “thank you,” and give feedback regularly. Little gestures like saying good morning or asking how their weekend was before you go into all of the ‘to-dos’ for the week will also help. These things may sound small, but they are most definitely not. People want to feel as if the people they are working for actually care about them.

Soft Skill – Key Competencies in Culinary Education

Overall, the implication of the Wilks and Hemsworth’s findings is that hospitality educators should attend to those competencies perceived as essential for the field by practicing professionals, and provide programs to develop them. Since what is perceived as most important has greatly to do with personality disposition, ultimately it is important to select students who have an adequate profile. Flexibility and adaptability, for instance, are difficult to develop unless students possess certain personality traits. This is a controversial point because there is competition for students and the sector may not feel able to afford precise discrimination. It nevertheless remains an important point to be addressed.

Moreover, as Redman & Wilkinson (2006) points out, focusing on some competencies can legitimize prejudice, since what is perceived as most desirable may often correspond to a demeanor associated with a white middle-class profile. In addition, these competencies tend not to be highly rewarded when unaccompanied by technical competencies. There are also risks in developing interpersonal competencies, for instance, and neglecting the acquisition of technical competencies and the knowledge essential to managing an organization.

Furthermore, higher education is not only a means of getting a job. It is about getting an education‟. As Lashley (2004) points out, it is necessary to escape the tyranny of relevance and develop analytical and critical thinking essential to creating reflective practitioners.

Soft skills are best taught though role modeling rather than formal academic instruction. According to Bandura‟s (1986) Social Learning Theory, people learn from one another through observation and imitation (modeling), reproducing given behaviors. The process involves close contact, imitation of seniors, understanding the concepts and role model behavior. Following this line of thought, we propose important themes for students in the hospitality industry.

Competencies Highest Means (average scores on a 5-point scale)

• Being able to work in a team 4.71
• Leadership 4.67
• Problem solving capacity 4.65
• Sensitivity to customer needs 4.65
• To present a professional behavior 4.65
• To motivate others 4.61
• Empathy 4.56
• To act calmly 4.59
• Creativity 4.55
• Handling guest complaints 4.53
• To communicate 4.49
• Adaptability 4.47
• Self-control 4.47
• Mastering foreign languages 4.47
• Ethics and Social responsibility 4.45
• Capacity to negotiate 4.44
• E-commerce skills 4.20

Note:

Wilks, Daneila and Kevin Hemsworth (2011) Tourism management Studies, Nº 7, 131 -137, International English Edition, ISSN: 1646-2408

Social Development Theory (Vygotsky)

Social Development Theory was developed by Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) who argues that social interaction precedes development; consciousness and cognition are the end product of socialization and social behavior.

Key Concepts

Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory is the work of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934)[1][2]. Vygotsky’s work was largely unknown to the West until it was published in 1962. Vygotsky’s theory is one of the foundations of ‘constructivism’. Constructivism as a paradigm or worldview posits that learning is an active, constructive process. The learner is an information constructor. People actively construct or create their own subjective representations of objective reality. New information is linked to prior knowledge, thus mental representations are subjective. It asserts three major themes regarding social interaction, the more knowledgeable other, and the zone of proximal development.

Social Interaction

Social interaction plays a fundamental role in the process of cognitive development. In contrast to Jean Piaget’s understanding of child development (in which development necessarily precedes learning), Vygotsky felt social learning precedes development. He states: “Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (inter-psychological) and then inside the child (intra-psychological)”.

The More Knowledgeable Other (MKO)

The MKO refers to anyone who has a better understanding or a higher ability level than the learner, with respect to a particular task, process, or concept. The MKO is normally thought of as being a teacher, coach, or older adult, but the MKO could also be peers, a younger person, or even computers.

The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

The ZPD is the distance between a student’s ability to perform a task under adult guidance and/or with peer collaboration and the student’s ability solving the problem independently. According to Vygotsky, learning occurred in this zone.

Vygotsky focused on the connections between people and the sociocultural context in which they act and interact in shared experiences. According to Vygotsky, humans use tools that develop from a culture, such as speech and writing, to mediate their social environments. Initially children develop these tools to serve solely as social functions, ways to communicate needs. Vygotsky believed that the internalization of these tools led to higher thinking skills.

Applications of the Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory

Many schools have traditionally held a transmissionist or instructionist model in which a teacher or lecturer ‘transmits’ information to students. In contrast, Vygotsky’s theory promotes learning contexts in which students play an active role in learning. Roles of the teacher and student are therefore shifted, as a teacher should collaborate with his or her students in order to help facilitate meaning construction in students. Learning therefore becomes a reciprocal experience for the students and teacher.

Notes:

Luis C. Moll: L.S. Vygotsky and Education (Routledge Key Ideas in Education): An accessible, introductory volume that provides a good summary of Vygtoskian core concepts, including the sociocultural genesis of human thinking, a developmental approach to studying human thinking, and the power of cultural mediation in understanding and transforming educational practices. Well written and worth a look.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.

Crawford, K. (1996). Vygotskian approaches in human development in the information era. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(1-2), 43-62.

Situated Learning Theory (Jean Lave)

Situated Learning Theory posits that learning is unintentional and situated within authentic activity, context, and culture.

In contrast with most classroom learning activities that involve abstract knowledge which is and out of context, Lave argues that learning is situated; that is, as it normally occurs, learning is embedded within activity, context and culture. It is also usually unintentional rather than deliberate. Lave and Wenger call this a process of “legitimate peripheral participation”[2].

Knowledge needs to be presented in authentic contexts — settings and situations that would normally involve that knowledge. Social interaction and collaboration are essential components of situated learning — learners become involved in a “community of practice” which embodies certain beliefs and behaviors to be acquired. As the beginner or novice moves from the periphery of a community to its center, he or she becomes more active and engaged within the culture and eventually assumes the role of an expert.

Other researchers have further developed Situated Learning theory. Brown, Collins & Duguid (1989) emphasize the idea of cognitive apprenticeship: “Cognitive apprenticeship supports learning in a domain by enabling students to acquire, develop and use cognitive tools in authentic domain activity. Learning, both outside and inside school, advances through collaborative social interaction and the social construction of knowledge.” Situated learning is related to Vygotsky’s notion of learning through social development.

Social Learning Theory (Albert Bandura)

Social Learning Theory, theorized by Albert Bandura, posits that people learn from one another, via observation, imitation, and modeling. The theory has often been called a bridge between behaviorist and cognitive learning theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and motivation.

Key Concepts

People learn through observing others’ behavior, attitudes, and outcomes of those behaviors[1]. “Most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action.” (Bandura). Social learning theory explains human behavior in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences.

Necessary Conditions for Effective Modeling

Attention — various factors increase or decrease the amount of attention paid. Includes distinctiveness, affective valence (relative capacity to unite, react, or interact), prevalence, complexity, functional value. One’s characteristics (e.g. sensory capacities, arousal level, perceptual set, past reinforcement) affect attention.

Retention — remembering what you paid attention to. Includes symbolic coding, mental images, cognitive organization, symbolic rehearsal, motor rehearsal.

Reproduction — reproducing the image. Including physical capabilities, and self-observation of reproduction.

Motivation — having a good reason to imitate. Includes motives such as past (i.e. traditional behaviorism), promised (imagined incentives) and vicarious (seeing and recalling the reinforced model)

Reciprocal Determinism

Bandura believed in “reciprocal determinism”, that is, the world and a person’s behavior cause each other, while behaviorism essentially states that one’s environment causes one’s behavior[2],

Bandura, who was studying adolescent aggression, found this too simplistic, and so in addition he suggested that behavior causes environment as well[3]. Later, Bandura soon considered personality as an interaction between three components: the environment, behavior, and one’s psychological processes (one’s ability to entertain images in minds and language).

Social learning theory has sometimes been called a bridge between behaviorist and cognitive learning theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and motivation. The theory is related to Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory and Lave’s Situated Learning, which also emphasize the importance of social learning.