Owen on Laird, _Pull: Networking and Success since Benjamin Franklin_

[eh.net-review at eh.net]

Published by EH.NET (July 2007)

Pamela Walker Laird, _Pull: Networking and Success since Benjamin 
Franklin_. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. xi + 439 
pp. $30 (hardcover), ISBN: 0-674-01907-5.

Reviewed for EH.NET by Laura J. Owen, Department of Economics, DePaul 
University.


Pamela Walker Laird (Associate Professor of History, University of 
Colorado, Denver) has written an interpretation of success in 
American business which challenges the primary role of individual 
effort. While the traditional rhetoric of success in American 
business has individuals pulling themselves up by their own 
bootstraps, Laird argues that the key to success is access to social 
capital. Her definition notes that "social capital exists and flows 
through personal connections and individuals' potential for making 
connections" (p.2). Since social capital is unevenly distributed, 
those with access benefit and those without suffer, even in the face 
of equal individual talents and efforts. The language of social 
capital within business (networks, mentors, gatekeepers, role models) 
emerged in the last quarter of the twentieth century, but Laird uses 
it to retell elements of business history to reveal the social forces 
which were often behind the success of self-made men. Her 
interpretation relies on an extensive range of primary resources from 
numerous archives and secondary resources from a variety of 
literatures, all documented in seventy-nine pages of footnotes.

In retelling the success stories of numerous Americans -- from 
Benjamin Franklin, to Andrew Carnegie, to Bill Gates -- Laird does 
not discount the role of individual skills and efforts; rather she 
develops the richer social milieu in which these skills and efforts 
led to success. Franklin's success in Philadelphia is often 
attributed to his hard work and ingenuity, but he also had access to 
networks and significant social capital. He was white, male, 
Protestant, well-mannered, and a skilled printer -- characteristics 
which made him similar to other successful people in the Philadelphia 
community. Andrew Carnegie was able to showcase his talents and drive 
when his mentor, Thomas A Scott, pulled him into the rapidly 
expanding railroad industry. Though schools became one of the 
gatekeepers that limited access, Bill Gates did not need the 
credentials of an Ivy League degree because he already possessed 
significant social capital from his well-connected family and 
exposure to the newly emerging technology of computers in high school.

However, this is not so much the story of how those with access to 
social capital were able to use it for personal gain, but of how 
those without access have been thwarted in their efforts to achieve 
success. Looking at social capital as a determinant of business 
success, Laird distinguishes between the impacts of push and pull 
discrimination. "Push" excludes people (women and minorities) but 
"pull" ensures their access. It is through the latter that the 
possession of social capital is most advantageous. "Push" 
discrimination kept certain groups out of the arenas in which 
business success was possible. Early organizing efforts to address 
these exclusions are interpreted as attempts to "synthesize" social 
capital and include labor organizations, women's groups, ethnic 
banks, and W.E.B. DuBois's call for a "group economy" within which 
African-Americans would patronize black-owned businesses. (Readers 
will recognize these as the type of activities Robert Putnam 
identified as the building blocks of social capital in _Bowling 
Alone_, 2000). Ultimately, the Civil Rights and feminist movements of 
the 1960s and 1970s would become the catalyst for legislation that 
would outlaw "push" discrimination. With the reduction in outright 
exclusionary policies, the importance of "pull" (access to social 
capital) became more apparent; people got in the door but did not 
advance because they lacked "pull." Affirmative action programs 
provided some help by ensuring that individuals had access to some of 
the same paths for advancement (education, job ladders, in-house 
training), however, they could not completely equalize paths because 
some access to social capital is social (off-the-job) and women and 
minorities could still be excluded. Additionally, while affirmative 
action might successfully be used to "synthesize" social capital, it 
contradicted the rhetoric of individualism and was attacked for 
undermining initiative without recognizing the role of "customary" 
social capital (possessed by those born and raised with it) in 
business success.

Within this interpretation of the role of social capital in business, 
readers will find many ties to broader themes in economic and 
business history. The movement from self-employment (farmer/artisan) 
to employee status may have exacerbated some on the effects of 
push/pull discrimination. Employment decisions came under the control 
of "gatekeepers" (personnel departments) who perpetuated the 
homogeneity of the work force, particularly within white collar work. 
Access to schooling acted as another gatekeeper and as a source of 
social capital through contacts made with school peers. The growth of 
large-scale business and customer integration invaded the territory 
(the African-American community) of formally black-owned small 
business. While "pull" existed beforehand, it was institutionalized 
with the development of internal labor markets. (Laird never uses the 
term though she describes all the features of ILMs.) The system 
codified prejudices of who was considered to have the "potential" to 
succeed and gatekeepers only allowed those with this potential onto 
the ladders leading to the top. The "glass ceiling" in corporate 
America is the classic example of "pull" discrimination in that, 
regardless of individual effort (from below), it can be broken only 
with help from above (a mentor, a sponsor, or an affirmative action 
policy).

Laird analyzes advancement within a firm as the measure of business 
success, particularly in her late nineteenth and twentieth century 
examples. Current career patterns are suggesting that internal labor 
markets (and within-firm advancement opportunities) may be less 
important today than 20 years ago. If these patterns continue, what 
will this mean for the further advancement of women and minorities in 
business? Will it increase or decrease the importance of "pull"?

Laird ends on a cautionary note that the current usage of the 
language of social capital is no longer directly associated with its 
anti-discrimination roots. This allows people to recognize the role 
of social capital in business success (importance of mentors, 
networks, etc.) without acknowledging its uneven distribution and the 
need for synthesizing it for some groups. Social capital has been 
integrated into individualistic notions of success with the 
suggestion that anyone can get ahead, if they know how to find a 
mentor and access to the right network.


Laura J. Owen is Associate Professor of Economics at DePaul 
University in Chicago, Illinois. She has published articles on labor 
turnover and employment practices in the U.S. and is currently 
working on a comparative project of U.S. and Canadian work hours in 
the post-WWII era.

Copyright (c) 2007 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be 
copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to 
the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the 
EH.Net Administrator (administrator at eh.net; Telephone: 513-529-2229). 
Published by EH.Net (July 2007). All EH.Net reviews are archived at 
http://www.eh.net/BookReview.