Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Homophilie, Diversity und Feedback: eine soziale Netzwerkanalyse

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Personalmanagement

Part of the book series: Forschung und Praxis an der FHWien der WKW ((FPGHW))

  • 25k Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Homophilie – die Tendenz, Beziehungen zu Individuen aufzubauen, die einem selber im Hinblick auf soziodemografische Eigenschaften oder Verhaltensweisen ähnlich sind – spielt eine wichtige Rolle für die Entwicklung von MitarbeiterInnen-Netzwerken in Unternehmen. Diese Netzwerke werden auch zum Lernen genutzt (z. B. bei der Vergabe von gegenseitigem Feedback), doch das Potenzial dazu könnte bei homophilen Netzwerken niedrig sein, da die empfangenen Informationen limitierter und weniger innovativ sind als in heterogenen Netzwerken. In dieser Studie wurde untersucht, ob ähnliche demografische Eigenschaften und ähnliche Feedback-Präferenzen der MitarbeiterInnen die Häufigkeit beeinflussen, wie oft sie Feedback von KollegInnen einholen und als wie nützlich sie das eingeholte Feedback empfinden. Außerdem sollte aufgezeigt werden, ob eine Team-Building-Maßnahme die prognostizierten Effekte reduzieren und zu mehr Vielfältigkeit beim Einholen von Feedback führen kann. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Homophilie in der Tat die Feedback-Beziehungen der MitarbeiterInnen beeinflusst und dass Team-Building-Maßnahmen diese Einflüsse reduzieren. Team-Building-Maßnahmen sind ein probates Instrument für das internationale Personalmanagement, um MitarbeiterInnen darin zu unterstützen, Feedback auf Basis komplexerer Entscheidungskriterien zu suchen, um so die Performance der MitarbeiterInnen zu unterstützen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Anseel, F., Beatty, A. S., Shen, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feed-back-seeking behavior. Journal of Management, 41(1), 318–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, J., & Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58(1), 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, J., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29(6), 773–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartram, D., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Individual and organizational factors in competence acquisition. In W. Nijhof (Hrsg.), The learning potential of the workplace (S. 71–96). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, T. E., & Klimoska, R. J. (1989). A field study of the relationship between the organizational feedback environment and performance. Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 343–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D., Clore, G. L., & Smeaton, G. (1986). The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect anything? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1167–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheramie, R. (2013). An examination of feedback seeking behaviors, the feedback source and career success. Career Development International, 18(7), 712–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condon, J. W., & Crano, W. D. (1988). Inferred evaluation and the relationship between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 789–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R., Borgatti, P., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, D., Krackhardt, D., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2003). Sensitivity of MRQAP tests to collinerarity and autocorrelation conditions. Psychometrika, 72(4), 563–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eder, D., & Hallinan, M. T. (1978). Sex differences in children’s friendships. American Sociological Review, 43(2), 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frieling, M., & Froehlich, D. E. (2016). Whom to ask? The role of homophily in feedback-seeking relationships. Poster presented at the EARLI SIG 14. Regensburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froehlich, D. E., Beausaert, A. J., & Segers, M. S. R. (2014). Feedback seeking in the personal network: The effects on employability and the dangers of homophily. Paper presented at the EARLI SIG 14. Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, P. J., Carley, K. M., Krackhardt, D., & Wholey, D. (2000). Choosing work group members: Balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 226–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (2008). Interpersonal networks in organizations: Cognition, personality, dynamics, and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. E., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger (Hrsg.), Freedom and control in modern society (S. 18–66). New York: Van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louch, H. (2000). Personal network integration: transitivity and homophily in strongtie-relations. Social Networks, 22(1), 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luthans, F., & Peterson, J. (2003). 360-degree feedback with systematic coaching: Empirical analysis suggests a winning combination. Human Resource Management, 42(3), 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, P. V. (1988). Homogeneity in Confiding Relations. Social Networks, 10, 57–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newcomb, T. (1956). The prediction of interpersonal attraction. American Psychologist, 11(11), 575–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-Reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organizational Science, 12(4), 502–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rijt, J. van der, Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2013). Understanding informal feedback seeking in the workplace: The impact of the position in the organizational hierarchy. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(1), 72–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roebuck (1996). Constructive Feedback: Key to Higher Performance and Commitment. Long Range Planning, 29(3), 328–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1997). Methods, tools, and strategies for team training. In M. A. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein (Hrsg.), Training for a rapidly changing work-place (S. 249–279). Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., DiazGrandados, D., Klein, C., Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Goodwin, G. F., et al. (2008). Does team training improve team performance? A Meta-Analysis. Human Factors, 50(6), 903–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M., & Jansen, N. (2010). Transfer of training: The role of feedback in supportive social networks. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(2), 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watling, C., Driessen, E., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Lingard, L. (2014). Learning culture and feedback: An international study of medical athletes and musicians. Medical Education, 48(7), 713–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yap, J., & Harrigan, N. (2015). Why does everybody hate me? Balance, status, and homophily: The triumvirate of signed tie formation. Social Networks, 40, 103–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maastricht University, Maastricht, Niederlande

    Madeline Frieling

  2. Institut für Bildungswissenschaft, Universität Wien, Wien, Österreich

    Dominik E. Froehlich

Authors
  1. Madeline Frieling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dominik E. Froehlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Madeline Frieling .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Personal und Organisation, FHWien der WKW, Wien, Austria

    Barbara Covarrubias Venegas

  2. Institut für Personal und Organisation, FHWien der WKW, Wien, Austria

    Katharina Thill

  3. Institut für Personal und Organisation, FHWien der WKW, Wien, Austria

    Julia Domnanovich

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Frieling, M., Froehlich, D.E. (2018). Homophilie, Diversity und Feedback: eine soziale Netzwerkanalyse. In: Covarrubias Venegas, B., Thill, K., Domnanovich, J. (eds) Personalmanagement. Forschung und Praxis an der FHWien der WKW. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15170-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15170-6_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-15169-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-15170-6

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation