RESOLUTION: By 2025 social networks will be recognized as the main drivers of organizational success.
We agree that by 2025 social networks will indeed be recognized as the main drivers of organizational success, and we further argue that this recognition has already happened and will continue to increase over the next fifteen years.
We subscribe to the definition of social networks as a structure of ties between individuals connected by interdependency, exchanges (financial, intellectual, logistical), relationships, beliefs, friendships, kinships and shared interests. Further, we consider that to be ‘recognized’, the organizations themselves must embrace social networks as the main drivers of organizational success. In this argument we define an organization as being any group of people attempting to function collaboratively. Finally, we define organizational success as meeting objectives in a sustainable manner, which encompasses making a profit and/or adhering to a sustainable organizational process - this process may include planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting (Gulick’s POSDCORB in Shafritz).
Three factors in particular support our conviction that social networks are, and will continue to be, recognized as the main drivers of organizational success. First, abundant research confirms the importance of valuing social networks in order to improve efficiency, performance and innovation within organizations. Second, improving technology and ever-increasing venues for social media are making networks more robust and increasing their utility to organizations of all kinds. Finally, as more and more organizations begin to focus on social networks and maximize them for success, organizations that do not harness the power of social networks will be left behind, becoming obsolete.
There is consistent evidence that emphasis on social networks improves organizational effectiveness. As Robert Cross points out in his book The Hidden Power of Social Networks, there is dependable evidence that well-managed network connectivity is critical to performance, learning and innovation in organizations. Cross argues that by using network analysis, organizations can move beyond largely ineffective general collaboration to targeting strategic individuals and capabilities to improve organizational efficiency and increase opportunities for innovation, both being keys to organizational success. Supporting Cross is Ross Dawson, a leading strategy advisor who wrote Living Networks, which anticipated the social network revolution. Dawson focuses on the change in organizational data management, namely how instead of going to files for information, organizations need to use their own networks to learn and therefore be successful. Using network analysis, people within organizations can know who to go to for information and to develop the capabilities they need to be successful in their assignments. Such networking is already being utilized in large, successful companies such as IBM, Cisco, and Cerner as a way of leading their organizations in to the future. With viable data on the importance of social networks to organizational performance, the practice will continue to spread. Even the US Army, traditionally a strictly hierarchical organization, has recognized the need to use networks in combating terrorism. General Stanley McChrystal created a network in Afghanistan in order to decrease the time it took for critical information to be communicated and swiftly translated into effective action by small, geographically disparate teams. General McChrystal took his cue from the terrorist network, for it is not only traditionally structured organizations that have realized that the network is the main driver of organizational success.
Not only does emphasis on social networks facilitate greater organizational efficiency, but the technology and social media used as tools for maintaining and expanding these networks are constantly improving and are making networks more robust and more useful. Advancements in internet and mobile phone-based technologies now enable masses of people to coordinate, educate and alert each other in order to enact social change. In other words, technology and social media facilitate the process of creating, building on and sustaining a movement. Media technologist Deanna Zandt commented in a CNN article on the effects that technology innovations are having on protests in the United States: “‘The tools we had [in 2004] were great for mobile communication among protesters and organizers…. But you could go to another part of the city … and people there would have no idea that anything was going on,’ … That situation has completely flipped. Today, communicating from and about the Occupy Wall Street protests is primarily a social phenomenon.” Individuals participating in and reacting to the campaign can share information about the movement with others, vastly increasing the campaign’s reach.
As much as a movements’ success depends on the capacity of its participants to implement a change-making strategy, success depends also on the relationships between the participants and their broader environments. Technology, and social media in particular, enable movements to build relationships – to attract, engage and activate members – efficiently and powerfully by enabling mass “access to conversation” (Shirky). Facebook, Twitter and other social media played an important role in galvanizing citizens’ support for and participation in the Arab Spring. As an Egyptian activist recounted to Fletcher PhD student Patrick Meier, “We use Facebook to schedule our protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world.” By publicly scheduling protests, participants overcame the obstacle of fear by demonstrating that large numbers of people were planning to participate – each “like” click contributed to reach the tipping point at which individuals felt safe participating. Twitter provided a convenient, fast and accessible platform through computers and mobile phones to incorporate the views of many. As with the current Occupy Wall Street outreach strategies (planned and spontaneous), YouTube and broader citizen journalism platforms were key ingredients in the process that enabled the Egyptian activists to reach a critical mass and overthrow their dictator.
Thus, social networks not only improve organizational effectiveness, but are becoming increasingly powerful and relevant in their ability to do so. In fact, we believe that organizations in virtually all sectors will be left behind if they do not embrace these realities. By way of illustration, the consulting firm used as an in-class example provided evidence that despite being a hierarchical company, the reality of day-to-day communications and information-sharing looked quite different than the official organizational map. Far from being centralized with executives at the center, the network was actually highly decentralized with the primary connectors being younger associates. While many of the ties these connectors have may be fairly superficial, they are savvy enough to know how strategically useful these relationships can be in keeping the organization innovative - a fact which was eventually equally valued and appreciated by decision-makers in the company. Had these executives not realized this enormous untapped advantage, the company might have lost a potent opportunity to gain a competitive edge in its operations.
The experience of this firm is certainly not an anomaly. Another surprising trend in how social networks are modernizing and strengthening organizational competitiveness has been in how labor unions conduct negotiations. This process used to take place largely behind closed doors, and workers often complained that this sort of bargaining did not make them feel like an adequate part of the process. However, United Auto Workers’ recent negotiations radically changed that process by using Facebook as a forum for workers to post questions and concerns answered directly by those at the table, as well as a host site for members to access iterations of contracts more quickly. As Kristen Dzicek off the Center for Automotive Research concluded, “There is unprecedented openness about this process...in communicating with their members and with the public, who, quite frankly, made a major investment in saving these companies.” Thus, such transparency has been extremely well-received and has only served to bolster the reputations of the Big Three auto companies. In an entirely different vein, the prioritization of alumni-based social networks has also contributed to university sustainability, in terms of recruitment, endowment-building and overall reputation. Not only is a thriving alumni base a key draw for many prospective students (consider the “Fletcher Mafia”) as a resource for professional networking, but it is also a critical base from which to garner funding. In fact, the importance of alumni loyalty makes such a difference to a school’s reputation that U.S. News and World Report’s college rankings use it as one of only seven categories of evaluation for American institutions, “as a proxy for how satisfied students are with the school,” which is yet another reason modern colleges and universities direct so many resources to maintaining those alumni networks. They are acutely aware that without such emphasis they could easily be downgraded in the fierce competition with other schools.
Given the ever-growing presence and recognized utility of social networks today, it is indeed difficult to imagine a future in which these networks would not be the main driver of organizational success. As heads of organizations continue to recognize the benefits of emphasizing social networks, and as technology creates new, innovative ways to capitalize on these networks, those organizations that do not consider social networks a main driver of success are sure to become less competitive and influential. On the other hand, those organizations that embrace social networks will enter the next decade well-prepared to expand their reach and maximize chances of success.
We agree that by 2025 social networks will indeed be recognized as the main drivers of organizational success, and we further argue that this recognition has already happened and will continue to increase over the next fifteen years.
We subscribe to the definition of social networks as a structure of ties between individuals connected by interdependency, exchanges (financial, intellectual, logistical), relationships, beliefs, friendships, kinships and shared interests. Further, we consider that to be ‘recognized’, the organizations themselves must embrace social networks as the main drivers of organizational success. In this argument we define an organization as being any group of people attempting to function collaboratively. Finally, we define organizational success as meeting objectives in a sustainable manner, which encompasses making a profit and/or adhering to a sustainable organizational process - this process may include planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting (Gulick’s POSDCORB in Shafritz).
Three factors in particular support our conviction that social networks are, and will continue to be, recognized as the main drivers of organizational success. First, abundant research confirms the importance of valuing social networks in order to improve efficiency, performance and innovation within organizations. Second, improving technology and ever-increasing venues for social media are making networks more robust and increasing their utility to organizations of all kinds. Finally, as more and more organizations begin to focus on social networks and maximize them for success, organizations that do not harness the power of social networks will be left behind, becoming obsolete.
There is consistent evidence that emphasis on social networks improves organizational effectiveness. As Robert Cross points out in his book The Hidden Power of Social Networks, there is dependable evidence that well-managed network connectivity is critical to performance, learning and innovation in organizations. Cross argues that by using network analysis, organizations can move beyond largely ineffective general collaboration to targeting strategic individuals and capabilities to improve organizational efficiency and increase opportunities for innovation, both being keys to organizational success. Supporting Cross is Ross Dawson, a leading strategy advisor who wrote Living Networks, which anticipated the social network revolution. Dawson focuses on the change in organizational data management, namely how instead of going to files for information, organizations need to use their own networks to learn and therefore be successful. Using network analysis, people within organizations can know who to go to for information and to develop the capabilities they need to be successful in their assignments. Such networking is already being utilized in large, successful companies such as IBM, Cisco, and Cerner as a way of leading their organizations in to the future. With viable data on the importance of social networks to organizational performance, the practice will continue to spread. Even the US Army, traditionally a strictly hierarchical organization, has recognized the need to use networks in combating terrorism. General Stanley McChrystal created a network in Afghanistan in order to decrease the time it took for critical information to be communicated and swiftly translated into effective action by small, geographically disparate teams. General McChrystal took his cue from the terrorist network, for it is not only traditionally structured organizations that have realized that the network is the main driver of organizational success.
Not only does emphasis on social networks facilitate greater organizational efficiency, but the technology and social media used as tools for maintaining and expanding these networks are constantly improving and are making networks more robust and more useful. Advancements in internet and mobile phone-based technologies now enable masses of people to coordinate, educate and alert each other in order to enact social change. In other words, technology and social media facilitate the process of creating, building on and sustaining a movement. Media technologist Deanna Zandt commented in a CNN article on the effects that technology innovations are having on protests in the United States: “‘The tools we had [in 2004] were great for mobile communication among protesters and organizers…. But you could go to another part of the city … and people there would have no idea that anything was going on,’ … That situation has completely flipped. Today, communicating from and about the Occupy Wall Street protests is primarily a social phenomenon.” Individuals participating in and reacting to the campaign can share information about the movement with others, vastly increasing the campaign’s reach.
As much as a movements’ success depends on the capacity of its participants to implement a change-making strategy, success depends also on the relationships between the participants and their broader environments. Technology, and social media in particular, enable movements to build relationships – to attract, engage and activate members – efficiently and powerfully by enabling mass “access to conversation” (Shirky). Facebook, Twitter and other social media played an important role in galvanizing citizens’ support for and participation in the Arab Spring. As an Egyptian activist recounted to Fletcher PhD student Patrick Meier, “We use Facebook to schedule our protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world.” By publicly scheduling protests, participants overcame the obstacle of fear by demonstrating that large numbers of people were planning to participate – each “like” click contributed to reach the tipping point at which individuals felt safe participating. Twitter provided a convenient, fast and accessible platform through computers and mobile phones to incorporate the views of many. As with the current Occupy Wall Street outreach strategies (planned and spontaneous), YouTube and broader citizen journalism platforms were key ingredients in the process that enabled the Egyptian activists to reach a critical mass and overthrow their dictator.
Thus, social networks not only improve organizational effectiveness, but are becoming increasingly powerful and relevant in their ability to do so. In fact, we believe that organizations in virtually all sectors will be left behind if they do not embrace these realities. By way of illustration, the consulting firm used as an in-class example provided evidence that despite being a hierarchical company, the reality of day-to-day communications and information-sharing looked quite different than the official organizational map. Far from being centralized with executives at the center, the network was actually highly decentralized with the primary connectors being younger associates. While many of the ties these connectors have may be fairly superficial, they are savvy enough to know how strategically useful these relationships can be in keeping the organization innovative - a fact which was eventually equally valued and appreciated by decision-makers in the company. Had these executives not realized this enormous untapped advantage, the company might have lost a potent opportunity to gain a competitive edge in its operations.
The experience of this firm is certainly not an anomaly. Another surprising trend in how social networks are modernizing and strengthening organizational competitiveness has been in how labor unions conduct negotiations. This process used to take place largely behind closed doors, and workers often complained that this sort of bargaining did not make them feel like an adequate part of the process. However, United Auto Workers’ recent negotiations radically changed that process by using Facebook as a forum for workers to post questions and concerns answered directly by those at the table, as well as a host site for members to access iterations of contracts more quickly. As Kristen Dzicek off the Center for Automotive Research concluded, “There is unprecedented openness about this process...in communicating with their members and with the public, who, quite frankly, made a major investment in saving these companies.” Thus, such transparency has been extremely well-received and has only served to bolster the reputations of the Big Three auto companies. In an entirely different vein, the prioritization of alumni-based social networks has also contributed to university sustainability, in terms of recruitment, endowment-building and overall reputation. Not only is a thriving alumni base a key draw for many prospective students (consider the “Fletcher Mafia”) as a resource for professional networking, but it is also a critical base from which to garner funding. In fact, the importance of alumni loyalty makes such a difference to a school’s reputation that U.S. News and World Report’s college rankings use it as one of only seven categories of evaluation for American institutions, “as a proxy for how satisfied students are with the school,” which is yet another reason modern colleges and universities direct so many resources to maintaining those alumni networks. They are acutely aware that without such emphasis they could easily be downgraded in the fierce competition with other schools.
Given the ever-growing presence and recognized utility of social networks today, it is indeed difficult to imagine a future in which these networks would not be the main driver of organizational success. As heads of organizations continue to recognize the benefits of emphasizing social networks, and as technology creates new, innovative ways to capitalize on these networks, those organizations that do not consider social networks a main driver of success are sure to become less competitive and influential. On the other hand, those organizations that embrace social networks will enter the next decade well-prepared to expand their reach and maximize chances of success.
No comments:
Post a Comment