33 Structural Holes and Brokerage
The theory of structural holes (SHT), largely associated with the work of Ronald Burt (1995), is a social network theory that explains how certain network structures can be advantageous to individuals. It describes a form of social capital derived from access to unique or valuable information. In this way, SHT builds upon and extends Granovetter’s (1973) Strength of Weak Ties theory. While Granovetter’s theory emphasizes the value of weak ties for accessing novel information, Burt’s SHT focuses on how individuals can strategically leverage gaps in social networks to gain advantages and control information flow.
33.1 Definition and Core Concept
A structural hole refers to the absence of a link between two parts of a social structure. In graph theoretic terms, these are “two-paths that are not full triangles”. For instance, if A is connected to B and C but B and C are not connected to one another, A bridges a structural hole between B and C. Essentially, structural holes represent gaps in the flow of information or control within a network. These “non-ties” are significant in creating opportunities for exchange.
As we saw in Chapter 25, when an individual’s network is characterized by clustering (where contacts are connected to one another), the effective size of their network is lower than its observed size, indicating that ego is connected to redundant contacts. In SHT this is referred to as a network that is high in constraint.
The concept of network constraint is the inverse of having structural holes. And individual who has high constraint lives in a social world in which most or all of their contacts are also connected to one another. This also means that the individual is heavily influenced by the strong expectations of a single group, and has to rely on others for information access, rather than being an independent source.
Conversely, low constraint ego networks are those that contain many structural holes (contacts not connected to one another), which facilitate intermediation through other individuals (alters). Networks rich in structural holes, often described as open networks, offer increased opportunities to acquire diverse information and ideas, as well as greater mediation in social relationships.
SHT fundamentally aims to explain how to configure one’s network to control information. Individuals who position themselves to “fill” these holes act as brokers. An example of a graph with a structural hole would show two separate clusters that are not connected except via the broker. This lack of connection is significant because it prevents the passage of information or content from one part of the network to the other, except as intermediated by the broker.
33.2 Benefits of Structural Holes
Structural holes provide two primary types of benefits to the individuals who bridge them:
Passive Exposure Effect: Brokers gain access to diverse information from different parts of the network that would otherwise be inaccessible. Because the groups they connect are not directly linked to each other, the information flowing through the broker is likely to be novel and non-redundant. This contrasts with strong ties, which often provide redundant information because closely connected individuals tend to know the same people and share similar information. This strategic position allows them to synthesize diverse information from various sources to create novel combinations and generate better ideas.
Active Control Effect: This benefit grants the broker power to decide whether certain individuals receive specific information, influence how others perceive various individuals, and potentially play people against one another. In the same way, individuals occupying positions that bridge structural holes are less constrained by the norms and expectations of a single group. They are freer to navigate the social structure, allowing them to adapt their roles or presentations to different audiences.
Empirical studies, often conducted within corporate settings, suggest tangible benefits for individuals with networks rich in structural holes (i.e., low constraint). These individuals tend to receive higher salaries, experience faster promotions, and obtain better performance evaluations. They also demonstrate an ability to generate better ideas by combining disparate elements from various sources to create novel combinations (Burt 2004).
In essence, Burt’s Structural Holes theory emphasizes that having diverse contacts who are not connected to each other (i.e., operating across structural holes) provides unique benefits in terms of information access, control, and ultimately, social capital.
33.3 Types of Brokerage
Brokerage can occur both within and between groups. Analysts have identified distinct types of brokerage than can occur in social networks (Gould and Fernandez 1989):
- Within-Group Brokers: These individuals operate within a single defined group.
- Coordinators: A coordinator connects two people within the same group who would otherwise not be connected. The coordinator themselves is also a member of this group. This type of brokerage helps facilitate connections and potentially new syntheses within an existing cluster.
- Itinerant Brokers: Similar to coordinators, an itinerant broker connects two individuals within a group, but the broker themselves is not part of that specific group. This role suggests a more external, consultative function in facilitating internal group ties.
- Between-Group Brokers: These individuals span across different, often disconnected, groups.
- Gatekeepers: A gatekeeper grants access from someone outside their group to someone within their own group. They control the flow of information or resources into their group.
- Representatives: A representative connects people from their own group to individuals outside their group. They act as an outward-facing link for their group. Liaisons: A liaison connects three actors, all of whom belong to different groups. This is the most expansive form of between-group brokerage, involving connections across multiple distinct social spheres.
These types of brokerage can be measured by counting the number of triads of each type, normalizing by the possibility of such counts occurring by random matching, and requiring the sorting of nodes into groups.
33.3.1 Forms of Brokering Process
Beyond the structural roles, brokerage can also be understood as a process with different forms of action (Obstfeld, Borgatti, and Davis 2014). Structural holes represent opportunities for brokerage, but realizing these opportunities requires motivation and action. Three forms of brokering are identified:
- Conduit Forms: This involves the straightforward transfer of information, ideas, or solutions. It’s about problem-solving through synthesis. Structural hole brokerage is a primary example of conduit brokerage. This can also occur within groups, leading to “within group syntheses,” even without a “hole” in the traditional sense.
- Tertius Gaudens (“the third who benefits”): In this form, the broker exploits the relationship between two other parties (alters) by keeping them disconnected or actively encouraging conflict between them (“divide and conquer”). This grants the broker control over their interaction.
- Tertius Lungens (“the third who joins”): This form describes a broker who actively connects or facilitates interactions between alters. This can involve closing off a structural hole by bringing previously disconnected individuals into direct contact, or by coordinating interactions among those who are already connected but not necessarily interacting efficiently.