Building social capitalÂ
The challenge, then, is first understanding social capital’s value and then working out how to build it.
LaMarre pens a distinction between two forms of it: “bonding” capital and “bridging” capital. At work, the first exists among close allies and trusted colleagues. The second is found in the weaker ties that connect people from other parts of the business, or further afield.Â
Both matter, no doubt. But LaMarre argues that bridging capital is a more potent force for change in an organization. “Focusing on building loose networks widely across your organization is how you move things fast culturally,” she says.Â
One of the biggest misconceptions, she goes on to say, is that social capital is built through a small number of deep relationships. Not so. Building just a handful of new connections each quarter can, over time, have a steady compounding effect.
For business leaders, the lesson here is that social capital only grows through deliberate and prolonged investment in nurturing new relationships. However, building social capital is one thing. Drawing on it when difficult decisions arise is another.
Under pressureÂ
In recent years, companies have faced mounting pressure to weigh in on a growing range of hot button issues in society, from social justice to geopolitics.Â
However, Feistman warns against knee-jerk responses to calls for public interventions – most especially social media backlashes. Partly this reflects his belief that much apparent outrage online is not coming from people at all. “We live in an age of bot storms,” he says. “Is it real? Or is it an LLM?”
Not every social media storm reflects genuine public opinion. Feistman points to country-themed US restaurant chain Cracker Barrel, which faced a wave of online criticism last year after unveiling a new logo. Subsequent analysis found that almost half of the X posts pushing the backlash came from bots.Â
The lesson? Before drafting a response, first establish whether the outrage is genuine and where it is coming from. LaMarre insists not every issue demands a statement to the wider public either. More often than not, the priority should be gauging which audience is affected, and tailoring a specific response to them.
Silence is, moreover, not necessarily a misstep. According to Feistman, what matters truly is whether companies explain their reasoning for a given stance.Â
The greater risk, he suggests, is inconsistency. Too many companies have bowed to public pressure and abandoned long-held positions nearly overnight, sowing confusion over what they actually stand for. Feistman says: “Speak from your values. And if people may not like it, they will get where you’re coming from. That’s all you can ask for.”