Social Capital and Opportunity
As the old saying goes, it's not just what you know but who you know. Relationships, not just knowledge and skills, play a decisive role in helping a young person transition from the classroom to a career. This perennial truth applies doubly in today's rapidly shifting economy. Social capital — the value embedded in personal networks, mentors, and community connections — can be the key factor in whether a graduate finds a good job or struggles to get a foot in the door. Indeed, economic opportunity is rooted in the "who-you-know" network of relationships that provide young people with information and support as they pursue their careers.
Access to these networks, however, is profoundly unequal. Young people from affluent or well-connected backgrounds often enjoy a rich social-capital web of mentors, family friends, and alumni connections ready to help them land job interviews and internships — a form of social wealth. In contrast, their peers from disadvantaged communities or first-generation college students frequently face a social-capital gap that can impede their entry into the workforce, even when they have comparable academic credentials — a form of social poverty.
Thus, it is fair to say that social capital, or the lack thereof, shapes young Americans' workforce entry and broader life outcomes. If we want Americans from all walks of life to have more social capital and opportunity, we must first examine the role of relationships in workforce readiness. We should then consider examples of schools, colleges, and employers that are innovating to build students' and workers' social capital, especially among those who start with fewer connections. Such an inquiry will demonstrate to policymakers, education leaders, and workforce stakeholders why investing in social networks is vital for equality and opportunity — and how to do it.
BONDING VERSUS BRIDGING
Not all relationships are created equal when it comes to expanding opportunity. Counterintuitively, it is often our weak ties — the looser acquaintances and peripheral connections in our networks — that open the door to new jobs and information, rather than our closest friends and family. Mark Granovetter's 1973 study "The Strength of Weak Ties" first identified this paradox: People we interact with only casually are more likely to move in different circles and know about opportunities outside our usual connections. These connections are bridges to new information and employment leads. On the other hand, our strong ties to close friends and family tend to inhabit the same information space we do, so we will mainly know what they know. Organizational psychologist Adam Grant has summarized the distinction: "Strong ties provide bonds, but weak ties serve as bridges: they provide more efficient access to new information."
This binary maps onto what sociologists call bonding versus bridging social capital. Bonding capital connects people to others like themselves, the tight-knit support of family, close friends, and in-group communities. These bonds are essential for "getting by" in daily life, offering emotional support and a sense of belonging. Bridging capital, on the other hand, links people to those unlike themselves, across lines of class, race, religion, or geography; it is thus crucial for "getting ahead" by accessing new networks and resources. Both forms of social capital are valuable, but it is bridging capital — Granovetter's "weak ties" — that most powerfully drives mobility and innovation by exposing individuals to ideas and opportunities they would not encounter within their homogeneous close circles.
Access to bridging social capital is uneven. And, unfortunately, the social-capital gap tends to reflect existing inequalities in income and education. Research by Harvard's Raj Chetty and colleagues, for example, shows that cross-class friendships — a prime example of bridging social capital — are among the strongest predictors of upward economic mobility for low-income youth. Suppose a child from a poor family grows up in a community with strong personal and other connections, where he interacts with peers from higher-income families. In that case, the poor child's future income rises substantially, by approximately 20%.
These bridging ties introduce new norms, information, and aspirations that can alter a young person's trajectory. It's not the friendships per se that cause better outcomes, but the knowledge, advice, and inspiration that flow through those social ties. A low-income teenager who befriends higher-income classmates might learn about internship programs and professional career paths, or develop the confidence to pursue opportunities that previously seemed "not for people like me." As Chetty's analysis found, the earlier in life such bridging ties form, the greater the effect on adult outcomes.
The difficulty, however, is that many American youth grow up in socially isolated environments. Their networks are primarily confined to others of similar socioeconomic status. They have few connections to people in colleges, industries, or professional roles that could broaden their horizons. This is especially true for first-generation college students and young people from high-poverty communities. Longtime higher-education analyst Ben Wildavsky has noted that first-generation college graduates often leave school with the same diploma as their more affluent peers, but without the web of professional contacts who help translate credentials into career opportunities. They have, in effect, achieved educational success but remain shut out of the informal networks through which most jobs are found.
Wildavsky further argued that networking opportunities in college and beyond are often "underemphasized or misunderstood" in our approach to career readiness, even though savvy insiders know that who you know can matter as much as academic success. This networking gap can feel like a severe shortcoming for those without inherited connections, effectively turning social capital into a force that deepens inequality.
Consider two new college graduates with identical résumés. One grew up in a professional family and can tap a loose network of family friends, former internship supervisors, and college alumni for job leads; those weak ties help circulate her résumé to hiring managers. The other is the first in his family to attend college and doesn't know anyone working in his target industry; his applications go into online portals with no referrals to boost them. This scenario plays out countless times: Lacking bridging social capital, talented young people can struggle to get noticed. Even later in careers, an absence of mentors and connections can hinder advancement. In short, social capital is becoming a new dividing line in American opportunity. Social wealth (abundant connections and support) begets further opportunity, while social poverty (isolation or limited networks) compounds the challenges faced by those trying to climb the economic ladder.
INSTILLING AGENCY
Relationships and networks contribute to an opportunity equation for human flourishing: Knowledge + Networks + Identity = Opportunity. Thus, social capital is more than a feel-good notion about making friends. It yields concrete benefits that extend beyond the workplace. Augmenting young people's networks can enhance their knowledge, engagement, aspirations, identity, and eventually their economic and social outcomes. For instance, sources of social capital, such as membership in youth organizations, teams, church groups, or mentoring relationships, instill positive feelings of engagement and agency in young people. These connections create a sense of belonging and purpose that often translates into better academic and life outcomes.
Research on student success underscores this point. The Gallup Student Poll, which surveys students in grades five through 12 on factors such as school engagement and hope for the future, finds a disturbing pattern. As students progress through secondary school, they become progressively less engaged and less hopeful. By 11th and 12th grade, about two-thirds of students feel disengaged or discouraged about their education. This disengagement cliff is not only about boredom with coursework. It reflects a failure to see the connection between schooling and a meaningful adult life. When asked whether they felt prepared for life after high school, non-college-bound students were the least likely to be engaged and hopeful. Many leave high school feeling ill equipped for the workforce and lacking direction.
What makes the difference for those who stay engaged? Gallup found that students who have supportive relationships in school — such as those formed with a mentor, teacher, team, or club — are far more likely to be hopeful and to see the relevance of their education. An engaged student is 4.5 times more likely to be hopeful about the future than a disengaged peer. Conversely, a chronically disengaged student is many times more likely to feel hopeless about what's ahead. These sentiments matter because they shape whether a young person pursues additional training, takes risks to start a career, or withdraws. In short, social capital in youth produces not just opportunity, but hope — including a belief that opportunities are within reach.
The late psychologist and senior Gallup scientist Shane Lopez, in his book Making Hope Happen, suggested how this positive preparation for life occurs. There are three mental strategies young people need to develop that prepare them for the workforce (and for life). The first is goals thinking (or future casting), which helps them define and set achievable future outcomes. The second is pathways thinking (or triggering action), which creates a specific route to those actions. The third is agency thinking, which produces the mental energy and self-reliance needed to pursue goals along defined pathways. Pathways and agency thinking work together to foster the pursuit of goals. This framework clarifies that mastering a discipline conveys more than the utility of acquiring a marketable skill. It also shapes our thinking in ways that allow us to set and achieve goals, ultimately moving us from aspiration to self-realization.
THE SOCIAL WORKPLACE
In adult life, the social dimension of work similarly has profound effects on job satisfaction, performance, and even retention. Work is not merely an economic transaction. It is inherently social in that it includes social exchange. The workplace, for many, is a community where friendships form and identities develop. A 2022 poll by the American Enterprise Institute's Survey Center on American Life, which included responses from more than 5,000 U.S. adults on social capital in the workplace, revealed how central work is to Americans' social lives.
More than half of Americans reported having made a close friend either at their own workplace (42%) or through a spouse's or partner's job (10%). In fact, workplaces ranked as the top venue for forming close friendships in adult life, surpassing other places such as schools, neighborhoods, clubs or social organizations, and houses of worship. Only 15% of workers said they had no friends at work, a testament to how pervasive social connections at the office can be.
But here, too, inequality persists. College-degree holders were more likely than those without degrees to have close friendships in the workplace (45% compared to 35%). The number of close friends workers have also reflects educational disparities. A 2024 survey by AEI on Americans' social capital found that about one in four (24%) with a high-school education or less reported having no close friends, compared to just 10% of college graduates. And college graduates were twice as likely as non-degree holders to have at least six close friends (33% compared to 17%).
This educational divide in the size of friendship circles is a recent phenomenon. About 30 years ago, Americans with more formal education did not have more significant social circles. In 1990, nearly half (49%) of Americans with a high-school degree or less reported having at least six close friends — slightly more than college-degree holders — while just 3% reported having no close friends.
Unfortunately, strong social relationships at work don't carry over to career guidance and mentorship in the workplace. Many workers said they do not receive regular career guidance and mentoring from their supervisors. About half of the workers (53%) with an immediate supervisor reported discussing their career goals and opportunities with their boss often (19%) or occasionally (34%). The remainder (46%) said they seldom or never discussed these topics.
When it comes to career guidance and mentoring, the educational divide again rears its head. More than six in 10 (62%) college graduates reported that they check in with their boss about their career trajectory at least occasionally, compared to 44% of workers without college degrees. College-educated workers are also far more likely to have a work mentor, defined as "someone in your field of work or industry who gave you advice and helped guide you in your job or career." A majority of college-degree holders (57%) reported having had a mentor at some point, as compared to only 43% of workers overall, and less than one-third (31%) of those with a high-school education.
Having friends at work is strongly linked to positive outcomes for employees and organizations alike. Workers who have a close friend at the office are far more likely to be satisfied with their jobs, to feel motivated and engaged, and even to stay with the company longer, compared to those who lack workplace friendships. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of employees who have a close work friend reported being very satisfied with their coworker relationships (versus 39% of those with no work friends at all). This social fulfillment also boosts general job satisfaction: 62% of workers with a close friend at work were "completely or very satisfied" with their job, versus only 37% among those with no workplace friends. Companionship on the job, it turns out, is a better predictor of happiness at work than many traditional human-resource benefits.
The advantages of a social workplace extend beyond morale. Employees with strong social ties at work are more engaged and productive. According to the AEI survey in 2022, nearly half of workers with a close office friend "feel excited or engaged" with their work on a daily basis, more than double the rate of those without such friends. They also reported finding more meaning in their work: 47% of those with a close work friend said their job is very fulfilling, compared to just 21% of those without close friends.
In essence, social capital in the workplace feeds a virtuous cycle: It boosts engagement, which increases performance, which in turn advances one's career. It also glues teams together. Employees with strong bonds are less likely to quit. Close friendships at work "significantly reduce workforce churn," the survey found. For employers vexed by retention and the costs of turnover, fostering a collegial, friendly workplace is not a luxury. It's a competitive strategy.
In that light, recent Gallup data on employee engagement across the U.S. workforce paints a worrisome picture. By 2024, only 31% of American employees reported being engaged at work, the lowest level in a decade. Active disengagement — workers who are unhappy and spreading negativity — rose to 17%, also a 10-year high. Young workers under 35, especially members of the Gen Z generation (born roughly between 1997 and 2012), saw the sharpest declines in engagement: Gallup noted a five-point drop in engagement scores among Gen Z employees in one year.
What's driving this disengagement? Gallup identified erosion in basic social fulfillment on the job. For example, the share of employees who strongly agree that "someone at work cares about [me] as a person" has fallen to just 39%, down from 47% pre-pandemic. Similarly, only 30% strongly feel that someone encourages their development, down from 36% a few years ago. In other words, many workers, especially younger ones, feel increasingly isolated and unsupported in their workplaces. The rise of remote and hybrid work may contribute. Working from home offers flexibility but can weaken casual connections and a sense of belonging. Indeed, only three in 10 employees now feel connected to their organization's mission or purpose, a record low.
The absence of social capital in the workplace carries costs. When people lack clear expectations, social support, or a sense of meaning at work, their engagement plummets. This has implications for productivity and innovation, but the most important consideration is its effects on human beings. Work is a central source of dignity and community in many adults' lives. A socially disconnected workplace can lead to social poverty at the office. Employees might earn a paycheck but feel mentally and emotionally adrift, which in turn affects their performance and well-being.
For policymakers and others concerned about workforce readiness and economic vitality, the takeaway is clear. Social capital is not a nicety. It is a necessity. It helps drive everything from human-capital formation (through motivation, soft skills, and knowledge sharing), to placement and matching in the labor market (through networks and referrals), to productivity and retention in organizations (through teamwork and engagement). Where social capital is robust, we see greater job satisfaction, higher earnings, and often better health and civic outcomes. Where it is missing, individuals and communities suffer. Thus, any serious agenda to improve education-to-career pathways, to raise productivity, and to promote equality must grapple with the question of how to cultivate and distribute social capital more widely.
SCHOOLS AS SOCIAL-CAPITAL BUILDERS
If social capital is so necessary in the workplace, it follows that our education system should play an essential role in fostering it. But traditional K-12 education reform has focused (understandably) on academic skills — what young people need to know. Now, schools and colleges need to become more intentional in developing students' social capital alongside their academic capabilities. This means viewing relationships as a critical resource that schools can help build. Research suggests that our K-12 system is not yet doing enough to help students form those relationships. For too many students, especially those from lower-income or first-generation backgrounds, school is an untapped opportunity to gain bridging ties that they can't get at home.
Consider career awareness and mentoring in high school. A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, encompassing more than 80 countries including the United States, demonstrated the importance of career-awareness activities. It found that teenagers who have frequent exposure to the working world through programs such as career talks, job shadowing, and internships have significantly better employment outcomes in young adulthood. They experience lower unemployment and higher wages, likely because these experiences build both relevant skills and networks. But only about 30% of U.S. students report having participated in "job shadowing or a work-site visit" — the sixth-lowest rate among OECD countries participating in the survey.
According to YouScience's 2025 Post-Graduation Readiness Report, 72% of recent high-school graduates feel "moderately, slightly, or not at all" prepared for life beyond high school. More than three out of four (77%) said they would have engaged more in school had they known their strengths or career options. A report from Gallup, the Walton Family Foundation, and Jobs for the Future, which included responses from more than 1,300 16- to 18-year-old Gen Zers and their parents, conveyed similar sentiments about this age group. Fewer than three out of 10 think they are "very prepared" to pursue any of eight post-secondary pathways, including college, a job, the military, or a certification program. Even among students most eager for a particular path, fewer than half feel ready to take the first step.
This is a failing of our K-12 advising and curriculum. If schools don't teach the hidden rules of the opportunity game — including not just career fairs and internships but networking, confidence in interacting with adults, and social skills — students from non-professional backgrounds remain at a disadvantage relative to those whose parents or schools impart that knowledge informally.
Perhaps no area of school focus could better address this gap than mentorship by teachers and staff. We know that when students have just one adult in school who takes a special interest in them, be it a coach, band director, or advisor, it can change their life trajectory. For example, a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) analysis confirms that close relationships with educators correlate with better academic outcomes, such as higher grades, lower failure rates, and greater college readiness, particularly for low-income students. Another NBER paper examined the effects of a large-scale randomized controlled trial of a structured student-monitoring program in Chicago Public Schools, called Check & Connect. Program participation decreased absences in grades five through seven by about four days, or 22.9% (though it had no detectable effects on students in grades one through four).
Relatedly, an evaluation of the long-term effects of the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America community-based mentoring program found that such youth-adult relationships "can be of enduring benefit to youth as they transition into adulthood." It also reported that these benefits "extend across multiple domains: education/academics, problem behavior, social-emotional functioning, and health." Simply put, students thrive when they are seen, known, and guided.
Economists Melissa Kearney and Phillip Levine have sought to explain the powerful influence of mentoring by distinguishing between role models and mentors. A role model sets an example for a young person to imitate but may or may not be known personally — e.g., a sports figure or media personality. A mentor, by contrast, has a personal relationship with a young person and serves as a trusted advisor and guide. Borrowing a typology from the legal scholar Anita Allen, Kearney and Levine note that role models or mentors can provide an "ethical template" that demonstrates to students how to conduct themselves in a role; they can also act as an achievement "symbol" that shows young people how to accomplish their goals. Mentors in particular are also "nurturers" who develop close connections with a young person and provide special support services, such as coaching, positive messaging, or explicit advocacy.
As the importance of mentors has become more widely researched and known, virtual mentorships have emerged as a promising way to deliver such support. For example, RAND studied the U.S. Dream Academy's model — involving partnerships with six public-school districts and including 198 youth from six to 18 years old, who were 75% African American and 19% Latino. The program's virtual mentoring had some drawbacks, in terms of difficulty building deep rapport with mentors. But it did overcome geographic and travel obstacles, making mentoring available to students who would not otherwise have had these relationships. Program success relied on strong design elements, such as mentor training, structured curricula, and screening.
Such solutions are worthy of consideration because impoverished schools typically have high student-to-counselor ratios and less capacity for staff to provide intensive mentorship. Moreover, schools often fail to connect students with external mentors or role models systematically. Many students go through high school without ever forming a strong bond with a teacher or counselor. That is a lost opportunity to build bonding social capital, a personal advocate who can advise and vouch for the student; but also bridging capital, because educators can introduce students to networks beyond their families.
There are inspiring exceptions. For example, some high schools partner with local businesses to provide industry mentors for capstone projects, or invite alumni from various careers to network with current students. These kinds of programs can demystify professional life and spark aspirations. But they are far from standard practice.
School structures should be redesigned to cultivate the "who" as much as the "what" when it comes to students' knowledge. This could include structured mentorship programs, project-based learning involving community members, and other supports to deepen and diversify students' networks. Schools that have tried such efforts — often as part of "career academy" models or linked learning programs — find that students become more engaged because they see a tangible bridge from school to future opportunities.
One promising concept is to treat social-capital building as a core metric of school performance. Instead of judging high schools only by test scores or graduation rates, what if we also measured how well a school broadens students' networks? Some education innovators have proposed tracking whether graduates have, say, at least three quality mentors or career-supportive relationships by the time they finish school. The idea is that all students should leave with a network: a set of contacts they can call on for advice, references, or information for their next steps.
Julia Freeland Fisher of the Christensen Institute points out that this is part of the opportunity equation: Schools should help students build an "opportunity network" in addition to academic competence. Practically, this could mean integrating activities such as mentorship pairings with community volunteers, "career days" that are not just one-offs but lead to ongoing connections, internships for credit, and alumni-networking events for students. Schools themselves can also innovate: Career-academy and early-college high schools have multiplied in recent years to offer more personalized, network-rich experiences.
One such example is the Delaware Pathways program, a statewide initiative linking high-school students to career experiences and mentors in industries such as manufacturing, finance, and health care. Students begin career exploration in middle school; by high school, they take vocational courses and, in the summer before and during their senior year, complete a 240-hour paid internship with a local employer. Crucially, this program engages not just schools but businesses, philanthropies, and community groups — a whole network invested in the student's development. Along the way, students meet adults outside their usual milieu, build weak-tie relationships, and get a chance to prove themselves in a real workplace.
Another example is the Cristo Rey network of 41 Catholic high schools across 24 states, which serves low-income students using an innovative work-study model: Students work off-campus one day a week in an entry-level job at a partner company, earning part of their tuition while gaining work experience and contacts. This model ensures that by graduation, each student has a résumé, workplace skills, and a roster of adult professional contacts — assets their more privileged peers typically acquire through family connections or college internships. Evaluations of these kinds of pathways programs have found encouraging results: They do not detract from academic achievement (students in career programs are just as likely to attend college as peers, and often graduate at higher rates), and they tend to boost employment and earnings outcomes. They also improve "soft" skills such as self-confidence, perseverance, and clarity of goals.
In sum, schools can be powerful incubators of social capital if they choose to be. A school focused on social capital would ensure that all students are embedded in a web of supportive adults and peers, and that they routinely interact with people from various walks of life. It would treat network building as a skill to be taught, encouraging students to embrace teamwork, practice communication, and form genuine connections of mutual interest.
MULTIPLE PATHWAYS
The Delaware Pathways and Cristo Rey programs exemplify how schools can adopt a new approach that helps close the social-capital gap among students. For too long, the K-12 mindset has fixated on "college for all" as the singular route to success, with not much attention paid to whether students actually built the social skills and networks to navigate the world after high school. But this new approach — which I have previously referred to in these pages as "opportunity pluralism" — recognizes that there are multiple pathways to success, and that relationships and social resources are essential for career readiness. Policymakers should encourage this shift by funding mentorship programs, incentivizing work-based learning, and holding educational institutions accountable — not just for academic outcomes, but for whether their graduates have the social capital to leverage those studies.
The traditional college-for-all approach assumed that a four-year degree was the golden ticket to a good job, and that if you just provide college access, opportunity will follow. But reality has proven more complex. Many students either do not complete four-year degrees or do so without gaining the skills (or networks) they need. Meanwhile, employers have started to value alternative routes and skills-based hiring. Opportunity pluralism entails valuing vocational, technical, and experiential learning routes — apprenticeships, certifications, two-year degrees, etc. — and embedding social-capital development in those routes to ensure they truly lead to good jobs and advancement.
A "pluralistic" approach to opportunity recognizes that some young people will flourish in a hands-on apprenticeship where they can earn and learn. Others may thrive at a traditional college, and still others might prefer shorter credential programs. Importantly, it rejects the stigma that non-college pathways are second best. In fact, these pathways can often provide richer social-capital opportunities early on (and thus better prime students for long-term success and happiness). Opportunity pluralism in education also means breaking the "credentialist prejudice" that only a bachelor's degree or higher is a mark of success. That prejudice not only undervalues middle-skill careers but also perpetuates inequality, as those who can't afford or aren't served well by college get branded as failures. Instead, we should validate multiple forms of achievement. But with that pluralism comes a responsibility: to ensure each pathway has the key ingredients of success, which include both knowledge and networks.
Consider the earn-and-learn apprenticeship model, which I have also written about in these pages. An apprenticeship by design connects a novice with an experienced mentor in the workplace. It is perhaps one of the oldest and most organic forms of social-capital transfer: The apprentice gains not only technical know-how but also the professional network and work-culture savvy of his mentor. With the U.S. now experiencing a resurgence of apprenticeship models, we have a chance to restore the connection between education and employment in a tangible way. States such as Colorado, the Carolinas, and Wisconsin have pioneered youth-apprenticeship programs that allow high-school juniors and seniors to split time between school and paid work at local companies. These students often finish high school with a job offer or college credits (or both), plus a network in their chosen industry — something their college-bound peers might not have until their mid-20s.
Public opinion is shifting to support such models. In surveys, more than 90% of Americans view apprenticeships favorably, and above 60% believe that an apprenticeship makes one more employable than a college degree. Gen Z teens themselves are keen on the idea: About two-thirds of high schoolers told pollsters they'd prefer to learn on the job through apprenticeships or internships rather than through college coursework alone. This is a remarkable cultural change. It suggests that today's youth and their parents are hungry for experiential learning that connects them to real-world opportunities — and, implicitly, to the social networks those opportunities contain.
The best programs for technical certificates or community-college degrees, for example, already provide their graduates with access to such a professional network; policy can encourage more to follow suit. Tennessee's "Drive to 55" initiative, which facilitates partnerships between community colleges, employers, and non-profits to mentor and place graduates into jobs, is a model of leveraging networks for student success.
The models above suggest that bridging social capital can be built in any pathway, academic or vocational, if it's prioritized. But a poorly designed pathway can leave a young person isolated. Traditional college, for instance, is often thought of as a great opportunity for networking. For many it is — through alumni networks, fraternities, etc. — but not for everyone. First-generation or minority students on big campuses can feel alienated and may not tap into the networking opportunities there. Recognizing this, some colleges and organizations have started programs specifically to boost social capital for underrepresented students. The key point is that institutions and policymakers must attend to networks and relationships, not just degrees and certificates.
WORKPLACE COMMUNITY
While education systems can do a great deal to launch young people with stronger networks, social-capital building does not end at graduation. Employers and workplace leaders are critical actors. Indeed, as mentioned above, the workplace is a primary engine of adult social capital — but it can either multiply advantage or reinforce disadvantage. A well-connected young person, once hired, might quickly find mentors within the company and be groomed for advancement; whereas a newcomer from a less privileged background might struggle to fit in or hesitate to seek out mentors, thus missing key developmental support. This is where employers face a choice: leave social capital to chance, or actively cultivate an inclusive network within their organizations.
Many companies use formal workplace-mentorship programs to integrate new employees and help them develop. But research shows that if mentorship is purely voluntary, the employees who could benefit the most may not participate. A field experiment at a large company, described in an NBER working paper, compared voluntary versus mandatory mentorship for new hires. The results were striking. When the mentorship program was voluntary, mostly high-performing, already proactive employees signed up — people who arguably needed it least. And they did benefit, but modestly. When the program was made mandatory, however, a much broader range of employees participated, including more workers who were struggling; the overall gains in productivity were much larger.
The researchers concluded that "employees who benefit the most from the program are the least likely to participate" on their own. Based on these results, the policy implication for employers is to strongly encourage or even require mentorship pairing for newcomers or those in need of upskilling, rather than just offering it. For instance, some companies automatically assign a "buddy" or mentor to each new hire for the first six months. Others run structured mentorship programs targeting underrepresented groups to ensure they build networks within the firm. Given the correlation between mentorship and retention (employees with mentors often report higher loyalty), these efforts can pay off in reduced turnover costs as well.
Beyond one-on-one mentorship, workplace culture as a whole can promote or stifle social capital. Polling by the Survey Center on American Life found that women, especially college-educated women, tend to be the "social capital catalysts" in workplaces. They are more likely to organize social activities, team lunches, birthday celebrations, and the like, which create bonding opportunities for coworkers. "Social organizing" labor can be stressful, however: Nearly half of frequent social organizers at work felt stressed or overwhelmed. This suggests that employers should value and perhaps distribute the task of building workplace community, rather than letting it fall disproportionately on certain employees (often women). Leaders can set the tone by encouraging team-building events, creating physical spaces or virtual forums for casual interaction, and explicitly rewarding collaboration and peer support.
It's worth noting that social capital at work has spillover effects beyond the office. Employees with rich workplace friendships tend to have more robust social lives in general; 68% of workers who have close friends at work also report having a strong circle of friends outside the office (four or more close friends in life), compared to only 38% of those with no work friends. And those who feel connected at work are far more satisfied with their overall social life. This suggests that helping people form connections in one domain (work) can strengthen their broader social fabric, addressing concerns about adult loneliness and isolation that have become more salient in recent years.
Policymakers and business leaders have also become more interested in measuring and investing in the social capital of their workplaces and surrounding communities. Some have proposed a "social capital index" for cities or corporations. Just as companies report human-capital metrics, maybe they should publish social-capital indicators: e.g., what percentage of roles are filled internally (indicating strong networks and mobility), or employee survey results on feeling supported. There is also room for public-private partnerships to nurture social capital. Public workforce-development programs (such as those run by Workforce Development Boards) could incorporate networking opportunities into their training services, including meet and greets between trainees and local employers or alumni. Libraries or community centers could also serve as hubs connecting job seekers with retired professionals who volunteer as mentors.
Finally, business and civic leaders have a crucial role to play in ensuring that the benefits of robust social-capital networks are accessible to those historically excluded — such as minority youth, people from rural areas, and students with disabilities. This might involve targeted mentorship initiatives (such as programs specifically connecting black and Latino youth with mentors in industries where they are underrepresented), or investments in community organizations that serve high-poverty areas and function as network builders for youth (e.g., faith-based groups, 4-H clubs, coding clubs, etc.). In a sense, these local institutions can compensate for what sociologist William Julius Wilson called the "social dislocation" in disadvantaged neighborhoods; they intentionally link youth to outside opportunities.
Recent research by Chetty and his colleagues found that areas of the country with high economic mobility are often those with more "cross-cutting" social ties between rich and poor residents. This can happen organically in some civic settings, but policymakers can also foster it in several ways: For example, they could locate programs such as magnet schools or community colleges in mixed-income areas, support mixed-income housing (so that kids of different class backgrounds grow up together), or fund transportation so that low-income youth can participate in programs (sports leagues and other extracurriculars) where they mingle with higher-income peers countywide. Every additional bridge built is a chance for opportunity to become more accessible.
FROM SOCIAL POVERTY TO SOCIAL WEALTH
As America strives to prepare the next generation for a rapidly changing economy, we must recognize that social capital is as critical as academic capital. Knowledge and networks together form the dual pillars of opportunity. If we focus on academics while ignoring the relational side of development, we risk reproducing the inequalities and disadvantages that leave too many young Americans behind. But if we invest in social capital — through mentoring in schools, cross-class relationships, and stronger workplace communities — we can multiply the benefits of education and training.
For policymakers, this means broadening the lens of education and workforce policy. They can do this by supporting multiple pathways — career and technical education, apprenticeships, alumni-networking initiatives, etc. — and ensuring that these pathways include built-in mentorship and links to employers. And they can champion innovations in K-12 and higher education that bridge the gap between education and community. Schools should be hubs of connection, linking students to caring adults and real-world experiences, not ivory towers divorced from practical life.
For business and civil-society leaders, it means recognizing that fostering social capital is not a charitable afterthought but a core strategy for growth and inclusion. A company that creates a culture of mentorship and friendship will reap benefits in innovation and loyalty. A community that facilitates cross-group interactions will see more of its youth rise. Governments can help create the conditions through grants, convenings, and data sharing, but ultimately social capital grows through millions of individual relationships — the coach who convinces a kid to stay in school, the teacher who introduces a student to an internship, the manager who takes a chance on an apprentice, the coworker who becomes a trusted friend.
In the end, social capital is a classic public good: When more people have it, everyone benefits from a more vibrant, innovative, and cohesive society. The task ahead is to view social capital differently — not as an accident of birth, but as an intentional endowment we provide to all our children. We know how to do this: through forming relationships, creating structured opportunities for connection, and promoting an ethic of inclusion. What's needed now is leadership and commitment to scale up these efforts. If we succeed, we will transform social poverty into social wealth, enriching young people's lives and our nation's future.
