Constructivist REBUTTAL:
While it is unclear to us how we came to be called ‘the Government’, it is clear that our opponent (perhaps the Libertarian Ron Paul?) has unjustifiably critiqued our definition of social networks. To clarify, the definition we ascribe to is commonly accepted and is pulled from Session 2 of our course (and also Wikipedia, a massive social network itself). To reiterate, we are using a definition close to Professor Tunnard’s definition: “a social structure made of nodes (which are generally individuals or organizations) that are connected by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as values, visions, ideas, financial exchange, friendship, kinship, dislike, conflict or trade. (after Wikipedia)” While the definition is indeed broad, this does not make it invalid. In fact, the power of social networks is in part derived from their broad and expandable nature. Similarly, collaboration between individuals does form a network, and Ron Paul is correct to assert that we define organizations as groups of collaborative networks.
It is important to note that throughout their argument, Ron Paul conflates social media and social networking, while the actual substance of our resolution is specifically about social networks, as they apply to organizational success. To this end, we have chosen to focus our rebuttal only on those arguments which are relevant to the resolution at hand, (and not spend our Saturday night refuting the number of text messages that teenagers send, as we find this irrelevant to organizational success. In addition, we don’t find societal concern about teenagers to be very convincing; society is always concerned about what teenagers are doing).
Within the confines of this resolution, we find several gaps in the arguments offered. A plethora of evidence leads us to reject the claim that over-exposure to information is counter-productive or that it is necessarily a consequence of social networks. Further, recent movements such as Occupy Wall Street, as well as the larger political phenomenon of the Arab Spring, have used social media to inspire people to physically join protests, effectively disproving our opponents’ claim that social networks facilitate the proliferation of less effective networks. Finally, our opponents claim the social networks are not the most important driver of organizational success because networks rely on effective leaders. We agree that leaders are crucial to the utility of networks, however, this argument is critically flawed, given that leaders cannot be effective without taking advantage of social networks.
We disagree that social networks lead to a counter-productive over-exposure to information and create redundant, harmful ties that impede the success of organizations. In the age of information-overload, networks act as a filter for information that is reputable and relevant to individuals and therefore organizations. Networks sift through the shifting sands of information to tease out the golden coins of knowledge. While Google provides a large number of search results, it often provides too many results of unknown reputation. Websites that create platforms for networks of people committed to valuing services and products such as Yelp! offer a filter for such information. Personal social networks - whether through social media or more traditional ties - provide even more reputable recommendations of entertainment, services, and news. Since individuals are connected to multiple networks and can freely search for information on their own as well, variety of information available is not compromised. When an individual knows where to go for reputable information within the network they can then make more effective use of their time. This act of filtering is also present in networks within organizations when people need information or skills to accomplish their goals. The networks as filters thereby contribute to organizational success. Further, Mozilla VP Jay Sullivan explained how reputation starts to develop within networks to create groups whose recommendations can be considered reliable, and mentions that the thrill of discovery through others, which makes the information more meaningful, is another positive aspect of filtering information through networks.
In reference to concerns about teenagers’ activities, this is nothing new to the history books. Each generation frets over the ability of the next to take the reigns of command and continue to propagate their success - just ask a Baby Boomer how their elders reacted to them. As a social dance historian at Stanford pointed out, “The older generations were especially worried about ‘juvenile delinquency.’ In the 1950s, this didn't mean dealing in street drugs or drive-by shootings, but rather chewing gum in class, souping up a hot rod and talking back to parents.” Teen activities now considered tame were credited with causing a host of social ills similar to those cited by Ron Paul, including sleeplessness, failing grades, distraction in school, (dance-related) repetitive stress injuries, etc. It is impossible to predict the effect of teenagers’ high-frequency use of social media on their future success in organizations that are and will continue to be based on social networks.
Similarly, they claim that organizations are losing 1.5% productivity due to Facebook. We ask: are we losing more productivity because of Facebook or is it just a new enabler for people who would be inclined to lose 1.5% productivity one way or another? Regardless, this loss of productivity they cite is due to social media, not social networks which, again, are the focus of this debate.
As for Ron Paul’s claim that social networks primarily serve to encourage ‘slacktivism’, we counter that social networks and the technology that facilitates them actually enhance opportunities for meaningful participation in change-making. Our opponent draws most heavily on Gladwell’s New Yorker article to legitimize their argument; however, it must be remembered that this piece was written before the Arab Spring - events which underscore just how powerful social networks (i.e. informal ‘organizations’) can be in effecting outcomes as dramatic as total regime change. Furthermore, these networks gained enormous momentum via the tools available through social media. A discussion at Friday’s Fares Center Conference at Fletcher spoke directly to this issue. Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian-American journalist who both followed and participated in the anti-Mubarak movement recounted the fact that there were many smaller issue-based groups that catalyzed the movement in Tahrir Square, including the labor movement, the Egyptian human rights community, groups reacting to the parliamentary election and the Coptic church bombing, and the April 6th Youth Movement, among others. Under Mubarak’s restrictions on rights of assembly, they were isolated and pitted against each other. Eltahawy was adamant that social media and other technological tools were what enabled these disparate groups to merge into a broader network and, ultimately, to effect change collaboratively.
While it may be true that members of social networks (particularly those with roots in social media) have the ‘easy option’ of simply clicking ‘Like’ on a cause they know little about, in reality such networks have made it far easier for those inclined towards involvement to actually stay plugged in and to contribute. Daniel Drezner concurs with this notion, claiming that “networks eliminate neither hierarchical power nor strong ties -- they're simply expressed in different ways...To put it more precisely: social networks lower the transactions costs for creating both weak ties and strong ties, loose collaborations and more tightly integrated social movements.” For example, NPR interviewed a group of four elderly women who joined the Occupy Boston protests this week. They heard about the movement and decided to support it so they coordinated a carpool and spoke directly with the press at the protest to voice their concerns about the status quo. They did not simply click on a link to express their support; once exposed to the movement, they actually organized with each other to drive an hour to the protest, took part, and spread their impact by speaking with the media.
In the same way that we feel Gladwell is inaccurate in his diagnosis of social networks, we argue that Ron Paul is erroneous in their interpretation of Centola’s concept of clusters - a central element of their argument on this point. They claim that ‘the cluster is the dominant factor, not the network between clusters,’ but this is a misreading of the term and a redundancy at that - clusters are themselves networks and it does matter that they are connected to other networks (clusters) in order to transfer behavioral changes between various networks. Claiming that a cluster is the dominant factor is claiming that a dense network is the dominant factor, not the weaker ties between various networks; either way networks are still the dominant factor! In fact, the difference between technology-based social networks and traditional networks has nothing to do with the resolution under debate. If, as Ron Paul says, technology provides links between traditional ties (how they interpret clusters), then it is simply another vehicle with which to transmit the necessary repetitive signals to create change.
Finally, Ron Paul asserts that social networks are simply a tool or vehicle through which leadership can be expressed. We have previously stated that capacity and leadership are important, but without the critical tool of social networks they cannot be effective, meaning that leaders cannot lead in a vacuum, in isolation surrounded by only their skill-sets; therefore the vehicle/tool is of critical importance. As we are discussing drivers for organizational success, naturally we would discuss the utility of social networks, and social media in particular, for groups - entities that must contain both followers and individuals with leadership skills. Morozov and even Gladwell agree with us on this. Morozov cites Gladwell’s statement that grassroots organizations use the internet to achieve successful outcomes in his article in the Guardian. “[Gladwell] explicitly stated (no less than three times) that the internet can be an effective tool for political change when used by grassroots organisations (as opposed to atomised individuals).”
We will reference Ron Paul’s soccer discussion only in passing as it was tangentially relevant at best. Yes! the individuals made brilliant passes to one another. Without a network of players, coaches, team owners, fans, the internet etc, men running around alone in fields, regardless of their ability to swiftly direct a ball, would not be relevant. Individual brilliance without connections between people engaged in collaborative efforts are of limited utility for achieving organizational gains.
In closing, ladies and gentlemen, social networks do not contribute to information overload but in fact act as a filter, easing the individual search for information that is relevant and reputable. In doing so, networks make more effective use of time and streamline the travel of information, which allows organizations to be more effective and successful. Social media may indeed increase the number of slacker networks; however, as we demonstrated, it sometimes acts as a unifier for such networks. And in the case of grassroots networks and those consisting primarily of traditional ties, it acts as an additional tool to spread their message and encourage active participation, sometimes of people who would not have heard their message otherwise. Thus, social media can serve to expand and strengthen ties of social networks. Lastly, while we concede that individual prowess is needed for organizational success, without a well-formed network (perhaps aided by the use of social network analysis technology), the individual will not be successful within the organization nor contribute his or her maximum potential to the success of the organization. Leaders of organizations can not and will not be successful without using the main tool of success: social networks. Therefore, organizations will recognize and utilize social networks - both within and without their organization - as the main driver of success in the future.
While it is unclear to us how we came to be called ‘the Government’, it is clear that our opponent (perhaps the Libertarian Ron Paul?) has unjustifiably critiqued our definition of social networks. To clarify, the definition we ascribe to is commonly accepted and is pulled from Session 2 of our course (and also Wikipedia, a massive social network itself). To reiterate, we are using a definition close to Professor Tunnard’s definition: “a social structure made of nodes (which are generally individuals or organizations) that are connected by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as values, visions, ideas, financial exchange, friendship, kinship, dislike, conflict or trade. (after Wikipedia)” While the definition is indeed broad, this does not make it invalid. In fact, the power of social networks is in part derived from their broad and expandable nature. Similarly, collaboration between individuals does form a network, and Ron Paul is correct to assert that we define organizations as groups of collaborative networks.
It is important to note that throughout their argument, Ron Paul conflates social media and social networking, while the actual substance of our resolution is specifically about social networks, as they apply to organizational success. To this end, we have chosen to focus our rebuttal only on those arguments which are relevant to the resolution at hand, (and not spend our Saturday night refuting the number of text messages that teenagers send, as we find this irrelevant to organizational success. In addition, we don’t find societal concern about teenagers to be very convincing; society is always concerned about what teenagers are doing).
Within the confines of this resolution, we find several gaps in the arguments offered. A plethora of evidence leads us to reject the claim that over-exposure to information is counter-productive or that it is necessarily a consequence of social networks. Further, recent movements such as Occupy Wall Street, as well as the larger political phenomenon of the Arab Spring, have used social media to inspire people to physically join protests, effectively disproving our opponents’ claim that social networks facilitate the proliferation of less effective networks. Finally, our opponents claim the social networks are not the most important driver of organizational success because networks rely on effective leaders. We agree that leaders are crucial to the utility of networks, however, this argument is critically flawed, given that leaders cannot be effective without taking advantage of social networks.
We disagree that social networks lead to a counter-productive over-exposure to information and create redundant, harmful ties that impede the success of organizations. In the age of information-overload, networks act as a filter for information that is reputable and relevant to individuals and therefore organizations. Networks sift through the shifting sands of information to tease out the golden coins of knowledge. While Google provides a large number of search results, it often provides too many results of unknown reputation. Websites that create platforms for networks of people committed to valuing services and products such as Yelp! offer a filter for such information. Personal social networks - whether through social media or more traditional ties - provide even more reputable recommendations of entertainment, services, and news. Since individuals are connected to multiple networks and can freely search for information on their own as well, variety of information available is not compromised. When an individual knows where to go for reputable information within the network they can then make more effective use of their time. This act of filtering is also present in networks within organizations when people need information or skills to accomplish their goals. The networks as filters thereby contribute to organizational success. Further, Mozilla VP Jay Sullivan explained how reputation starts to develop within networks to create groups whose recommendations can be considered reliable, and mentions that the thrill of discovery through others, which makes the information more meaningful, is another positive aspect of filtering information through networks.
In reference to concerns about teenagers’ activities, this is nothing new to the history books. Each generation frets over the ability of the next to take the reigns of command and continue to propagate their success - just ask a Baby Boomer how their elders reacted to them. As a social dance historian at Stanford pointed out, “The older generations were especially worried about ‘juvenile delinquency.’ In the 1950s, this didn't mean dealing in street drugs or drive-by shootings, but rather chewing gum in class, souping up a hot rod and talking back to parents.” Teen activities now considered tame were credited with causing a host of social ills similar to those cited by Ron Paul, including sleeplessness, failing grades, distraction in school, (dance-related) repetitive stress injuries, etc. It is impossible to predict the effect of teenagers’ high-frequency use of social media on their future success in organizations that are and will continue to be based on social networks.
Similarly, they claim that organizations are losing 1.5% productivity due to Facebook. We ask: are we losing more productivity because of Facebook or is it just a new enabler for people who would be inclined to lose 1.5% productivity one way or another? Regardless, this loss of productivity they cite is due to social media, not social networks which, again, are the focus of this debate.
As for Ron Paul’s claim that social networks primarily serve to encourage ‘slacktivism’, we counter that social networks and the technology that facilitates them actually enhance opportunities for meaningful participation in change-making. Our opponent draws most heavily on Gladwell’s New Yorker article to legitimize their argument; however, it must be remembered that this piece was written before the Arab Spring - events which underscore just how powerful social networks (i.e. informal ‘organizations’) can be in effecting outcomes as dramatic as total regime change. Furthermore, these networks gained enormous momentum via the tools available through social media. A discussion at Friday’s Fares Center Conference at Fletcher spoke directly to this issue. Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian-American journalist who both followed and participated in the anti-Mubarak movement recounted the fact that there were many smaller issue-based groups that catalyzed the movement in Tahrir Square, including the labor movement, the Egyptian human rights community, groups reacting to the parliamentary election and the Coptic church bombing, and the April 6th Youth Movement, among others. Under Mubarak’s restrictions on rights of assembly, they were isolated and pitted against each other. Eltahawy was adamant that social media and other technological tools were what enabled these disparate groups to merge into a broader network and, ultimately, to effect change collaboratively.
While it may be true that members of social networks (particularly those with roots in social media) have the ‘easy option’ of simply clicking ‘Like’ on a cause they know little about, in reality such networks have made it far easier for those inclined towards involvement to actually stay plugged in and to contribute. Daniel Drezner concurs with this notion, claiming that “networks eliminate neither hierarchical power nor strong ties -- they're simply expressed in different ways...To put it more precisely: social networks lower the transactions costs for creating both weak ties and strong ties, loose collaborations and more tightly integrated social movements.” For example, NPR interviewed a group of four elderly women who joined the Occupy Boston protests this week. They heard about the movement and decided to support it so they coordinated a carpool and spoke directly with the press at the protest to voice their concerns about the status quo. They did not simply click on a link to express their support; once exposed to the movement, they actually organized with each other to drive an hour to the protest, took part, and spread their impact by speaking with the media.
In the same way that we feel Gladwell is inaccurate in his diagnosis of social networks, we argue that Ron Paul is erroneous in their interpretation of Centola’s concept of clusters - a central element of their argument on this point. They claim that ‘the cluster is the dominant factor, not the network between clusters,’ but this is a misreading of the term and a redundancy at that - clusters are themselves networks and it does matter that they are connected to other networks (clusters) in order to transfer behavioral changes between various networks. Claiming that a cluster is the dominant factor is claiming that a dense network is the dominant factor, not the weaker ties between various networks; either way networks are still the dominant factor! In fact, the difference between technology-based social networks and traditional networks has nothing to do with the resolution under debate. If, as Ron Paul says, technology provides links between traditional ties (how they interpret clusters), then it is simply another vehicle with which to transmit the necessary repetitive signals to create change.
Finally, Ron Paul asserts that social networks are simply a tool or vehicle through which leadership can be expressed. We have previously stated that capacity and leadership are important, but without the critical tool of social networks they cannot be effective, meaning that leaders cannot lead in a vacuum, in isolation surrounded by only their skill-sets; therefore the vehicle/tool is of critical importance. As we are discussing drivers for organizational success, naturally we would discuss the utility of social networks, and social media in particular, for groups - entities that must contain both followers and individuals with leadership skills. Morozov and even Gladwell agree with us on this. Morozov cites Gladwell’s statement that grassroots organizations use the internet to achieve successful outcomes in his article in the Guardian. “[Gladwell] explicitly stated (no less than three times) that the internet can be an effective tool for political change when used by grassroots organisations (as opposed to atomised individuals).”
We will reference Ron Paul’s soccer discussion only in passing as it was tangentially relevant at best. Yes! the individuals made brilliant passes to one another. Without a network of players, coaches, team owners, fans, the internet etc, men running around alone in fields, regardless of their ability to swiftly direct a ball, would not be relevant. Individual brilliance without connections between people engaged in collaborative efforts are of limited utility for achieving organizational gains.
In closing, ladies and gentlemen, social networks do not contribute to information overload but in fact act as a filter, easing the individual search for information that is relevant and reputable. In doing so, networks make more effective use of time and streamline the travel of information, which allows organizations to be more effective and successful. Social media may indeed increase the number of slacker networks; however, as we demonstrated, it sometimes acts as a unifier for such networks. And in the case of grassroots networks and those consisting primarily of traditional ties, it acts as an additional tool to spread their message and encourage active participation, sometimes of people who would not have heard their message otherwise. Thus, social media can serve to expand and strengthen ties of social networks. Lastly, while we concede that individual prowess is needed for organizational success, without a well-formed network (perhaps aided by the use of social network analysis technology), the individual will not be successful within the organization nor contribute his or her maximum potential to the success of the organization. Leaders of organizations can not and will not be successful without using the main tool of success: social networks. Therefore, organizations will recognize and utilize social networks - both within and without their organization - as the main driver of success in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment