 Social networks are by nature complex phenomena -- they can never
be fully known or understood, and there are an infinite number of
variables that affect their evolution and their success or failure. My
observation is that they are also very fragile -- while some 'bonds' of
a network may be eternal or resilient, most networks as a whole seem to
be in a constant state of flux, and easily disrupted. I've been trying
to figure out why this is, and what might be done to make whole
networks more resilient and more effective.
Dave Snowden
has pointed out that our networks do not include us as individuals, but
rather as identities. This means that you may have people networking
with you in your various identities e.g. as a parent, as a co-worker,
as a member of a project etc. He says we have both formal (formed for
us) and informal (self-organized) manifestations of each of three different
types of identity:
- role based (e.g. as CIO or as acknowledged facilitator)
- membership based (e.g. as employee in a division or as cohort of some association)
- event or project based (e.g. as part of a project team or as player in a pick-up game)
Dave argues that informal, self-selected, self-organized networks
tend to be more effective than formal networks, for various reasons
such as greater trust and less hierarchy. But while formal networks can
be controlled and directed to some extent by those with appropriate
authority, informal networks are much harder to influence. The best way
to stimulate and influence them is through what Dave calls boundary
conditions (or rules), attractors and barriers, instituted early in the
network's evolution.
To be effective, informal networks need to have (I've amplified Dave's list somewhat here):
- a complex, shared problem, and either a sense of urgency to address
it or a strong affinity to make it durable if the problem endures (e.g.
the Toronto Maple Leafs' failure to put together a decent team for its
fans)
- a means to measure success, so that progress can be assessed
- meaningful (to the members) rewards to belong and contribute
- some constraints on the formation and membership to prevent it
becoming uselessly elitist, hopelessly conflicted, an echo chamber, or
unwieldy (Dave says the 'natural limit' of a network is 15)
So, for example, if you have identified a customer need in your
enterprise, but you are stuck because of some limitations of current
technology, you may try to establish or join a network of people,
perhaps around the world in different organizations and capacities, who
care about that particular technology constraint. In this case success
is easy to measure -- you either invent or discover something that
overcomes that constraint or you don't. Some members will tell stories
about what they have been doing or read about. Others will just lurk --
they may not have enough to contribute but be waiting to jump as
solutions and approaches to the problem emerge. If you add an attractor
(
e.g. a prize) you may get some members to work harder on the problem.
If the network gets too small to be doing much, or too short on
diversity of members, or too large to keep track of who's doing what,
it may dissolve or fragment. You may be able to impose some constraints
on membership to keep this from happening.
This is an example of an informal network that attracts members
based on their interest in the specific project, i.e. it is
project-based rather than role- or membership-based. Once an effective
solution to the technology problem has been found, it is unlikely that
the network will endure.
Blog networks probably combine all three types of identity basis: Some people will 'join' (e.g.
subscribe to a blog's feed and comment regularly) because they have
role affinity -- other knowledge management directors or consultants,
for example, subscribing to a KM blog. Some will be attracted by
membership affinity -- a shared belief in or love of something, such as
Gaia, or vintage cars. Some will be drawn by project/event affinity --
getting Obama elected, for example. My blog covers so much diverse
territory that it creates dissonance for some readers (
e.g. those who love my practical articles on KM but loathe my political
views). The networks of people it attracts are not always congruent
(though I'm surprised and delighted how often they are).
Role affinity draws principally on shared or related actions and behaviours. Membership affinity draws principally on shared beliefs or passions. Project/event affinity draws principally on
shared objectives.
What makes informal networks so fragile is that our identities are
constantly changing. If I move from a job as Chief Knowledge Officer to
one as Facilitator, it's likely to affect which networks I select to
belong to. If I give up on the political process, I'm likely to abandon
networks whose members still believe in it. Once the election is over,
by campaign networks are likely to dissolve. Shared problems eventually
lose interest or urgency, or are given up as insoluble, or get solved.
Progress may become impossible to measure or impossible to achieve.
Rewards may lose their lustre. Or despite membership constraints, the
cohesion of the network may just dissipate to the point there is no
focus or purpose left.
While informal networks are fragile, formal networks are, usually,
ineffective. There is something in human nature that makes us object to
being told who we must network with -- it's like being forced into an
arranged marriage. Imposed formal networks depend on hierarchy and
power, and on sanctions for refusing to work within the prescribed
network. Given our affinity for sharing peer-to-peer, this means
communication in formal networks is usually forced and dysfunctional --
instructions go down and are (often) ignored, while data is extracted
(often) begrudgingly and reported upward. We share knowledge only when
and to the extent that we have to.
The most powerful phenomenon in formal networks is workarounds.
These are the ways we find to do things effectively despite the formal
networks pressuring us to do things (usually) ineffectively. It's not
that those high in the hierarchy want us to be ineffective. They just
don't know any better. They have never done our jobs so they don't know
the best way to do them. And because messengers are shot, they are not
told what isn't working or why, so their decisions are inherently
flawed by lack of essential information.
Workarounds are what make the world work as well as it does,
despite the dysfunctions of hierarchy and size. Courageous
organizations (those that are small enough to be able to do it, anyway)
recognize this by not establishing any formal networks, by having no
hierarchy. They have no need for workarounds, just trust in people's
ability to figure out how to do their best given the constraints they
have to live with.
This doesn't just apply to the workplace. Family members learn
that "it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission" from a
domineering parent whose advice makes no sense. Likewise team members
with a bad coach. Wherever there are formal networks, there will be
workarounds to make them work better than they otherwise would.
All of this explanation of social network dynamics presumes that
you subscribe (as I do) to what Lakoff calls the liberal-progressive
worldview. Those who have a conservative worldview tend to prefer
formality and hierarchy and organized order, and they would have
written this article from a completely different point of view.
While they are welcome to do so, the fact is that there are, in
many networks, formal and informal, conservatives. These people prefer
formal networks to 'messy' informal ones. They like to be told what to
do and how to do it by someone with the authority to do so, and they
trust authority more than they trust the ability of their peers to make
decisions. They loathe workarounds.
What does their presence do to the dynamics of a social network?
First, they will be reluctant participants in informal networks,
hesitant to trust them. This will inevitably make informal networks
less effective, or, more likely, because these conservatives will self-exclude from
such networks, making them poorer for the lack of their knowledge, ideas and
experience.
Secondly, they will attempt, with the best of intentions, to try
to formalize informal networks (to add 'discipline' to them), to
denigrate them when they run counter to the operation of formal
networks, and to disable or at least formalize workarounds.
Third, their obedient success in the organization may make them
pariahs among the by-passed informal networkers, and may well drive the
informal networkers out of the organization entirely.
So what you end up with in many larger organizations are two modi
operandi going on simultaneously and at cross-purposes: One group
improvisationally and creatively finding the best way to do things by
networking informally peer-to-peer, and working around imposed
constraints, and the other trying desperately to make things work as
they are 'supposed' to, according to the manual, the boss' edicts, and
the organization chart, trying to impose 'best practices' and block
workarounds.
No wonder so many large organizations are such unhappy places,
since the dissonance between these two ways of working must be
infuriating to both groups. In fact, it is even more complex than that,
because most of us sometimes see the value of doing things differently from our normal modus operandi: Liberal-progressives see the need for
organizational rigour in areas where there is considerable risk, while
conservatives see no harm in informal networks for some creative tasks
or as an outlet for frustration with the organization's rules.
And as liberal-progressives move up in the organization, they
generally become more inclined to see the value in formal networks
that can exercise their new power and authority (and by embracing them,
they often find they move up even faster). Meanwhile, conservatives
who've been around awhile start to learn what works in reality and what
only works in theory, and may tend to become more accommodating of
informal networks, workarounds, and those who beg forgiveness instead
of asking permission.
They're like the stern parent who discovers to his astonishment that, when
the rebellious kids are given the chance to set their own rules, their
self-discipline is far more stringent and effective than imposed
discipline ever was.
Every once in awhile I take a look at my networks, formal and
informal, and the different identities in which I find affinity with
others. They are so complex and so dynamic that they cannot really be
mapped. And what's most fascinating is that, if I asked the people in
my networks (in their various identities) to map how they saw their
networks involving me, I'm sure they would be utterly different from
how I would draw them. Dave who?
| 
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 