Judges' Comments and Results

Debate 1:  MIA vs. Kevin Bacon

Affirmative Constructive:  Rather than parsing the resolution, the only definition of terms is the distinction between social media and  social networks. You talk about politics and IR only—a rather limiting set.  However, these are generally well-supported by sources. The Jakarta embassy example, while interesting, is a social media story and  looks like traditional USIA activity transplanted to Facebook.  Unless they have hundreds of people at the embassy posting full time, it's going to be primarily a one-way medium.  If the Indonesians are talking among themselves, that would be something interesting.  But that's not how the example is framed.  And even if your source says the embassy's Facebook wall is the only source of news about the US for the 18-35 gang, think about the credibility issue:  young people who have access to FB generally have access to a variety of new sources.  Again, all these points would have been stronger if made against a framework definition of important terms.

Negative Constructive: Before jumping into the specifics, you might have taken the opportunity to reframe the debate, as mentioned above.  3 possibilities: social media, or social networks?; definition of terms in the resolution; broadening the set of “organizations” more, although you do introduce Occupy and the Civil Rights Movement. You start out by saying that SNs may hinder success, but do you actually prove that?  And "may hinder" might not be so devastating to your opponents' position.  Too many connections do not necessarily mean a poverty of focus de facto.  And remember, Simon was writing before Google and other powerful search engines were invented.  You are right  that Occupy and the Israeli demos have not yielded results, but is that only because they have no goals or clearly-defined leadership?  They may not be there—yet.  Occupy is spreading daily and internationally, and the growth may well be fed by small-world network connections. And look at the Tea Party (as your opponents did in their rebuttal.) They may have “compelling vision, a solid strategy to achieve the mission, and organizational values.”  (There is some heterogeneity in their goals, but not as much as in that of Occupy) The Tea Party's recent election success is measureable. And their goal may be smaller government and less taxes, but how to make it smaller and which taxes to cut are being debated, and who is their leader? Arguably, they are a network and not an organization. Last, Shirky’s point about social tools don’t create collective action but remove obstacles set up a fairly easy rebuttal. (see next paragraph.)

Affirmative Rebuttal: This is an excellent rebuttal, and your approach, organization, and point-by-point comments more than make up for the missed opportunity to frame the debate at the beginning. The opening gambit of using W2W was risky but interesting.  It set up the rest of your arguments well. (And your opponents did not respond to it in their rebuttal.) Good points, e.g.:the removal of obstacles may have been the single biggest confidence factor in getting more people to participate in the civil-rights movement.  Without the popular support and the message” spreading throughout the network,” the “core of dedicated activists” would not have had the success they did.  Occupy now has a goal. Etc.  And your last point, yet another rephrasing of Herb Simon, was a particularly good closing.

Both sides in this conversation are treating the civil rights movement of the 1960s as if it took place only in whatever social networking media of the day.  But much of the conflict took place in the mass media.  There were images of sit-ins, and widely broadcast video of police beating and sicking attack dogs on non-violent protesters.  The mass media played a role in building political support for the movement, as well as convincing activists that non-violent action could be politically effective.  This was a long struggle taking place in a changing media environment, so there are no easy conclusions to make.  Suffice it to say that there were both social networking, mass media and multi-step flows influencing the outcome.

Negative Rebuttal: The Drezner statement is right, but it also doesn’t mean that they won’t be a success.  Good point about the world will change by 2025, but it would have helped your argument to speculate on how it might change (the EU report on Trunk is only one of many that speculate on this.) And your second point about measurability is a bit confusing; it seems to support what your opponents have said, and what do you mean by “there’s no evidence connections will remain observable over time?”  You could have supplied some yourself by, say, going back 15 years. You summarize your rebuttal by saying “We have no reason to assume it will demonstrably take the upper hand in less than 20 years.”  Well it may not, and your opponents did not go into detail, but a generation of people raised on mobile technology, FB, etc. will be in management and leadership positions by then…think of the ladies of W2W, for instance

On the other hand, the PSI rebuttal is effective.  There is a strategic consideration at work in the flight from international organizations in this case, and the network formed by PSI is not the same set of players as those in the treaty organizations—for a good reason, as you point out. 

The Result: A lot of missed opportunities by both sides, both to broaden the scope by introducing other domains (e.g. business) and to introduce a discussion about the technologies (Affirmative: rapid growth will continue, e.g. Facebook didn’t exist in present form until seven years ago.  Negative: It’s fragile, assailable, and may well level the playing field, with governments being able to use as well as the resistance movements.) A good, spirited discussion nonetheless, on the one hand, the edge could be given to the affirmatives based on the strength of their rebuttal.  But the Cons recovered well in theirs, too.  The result:  a hung jury, so a tie. 

Missing In Action? A Response to MIA

MIA presents a compelling case in asserting that social networks are, and will be, the prime determinant of organizational success. Upon closer examination, however, they commit a few obvious errors in their presentation of the role networks play in organizational behavior. In particular, their defense is based on two assertions. First, that social networks facilitate connectivity with previously untapped populations, and second, the networks efficiently identify “networked individuals.” These points are certainly accurate, but there is no reason to believe that these two reasons alone necessarily prove that social networks will drive success through 2025. You don’t need to be a Tufts Professor to see what Daniel Drezner points to when he states that just because a social movement is happening, doesn’t mean it is a success. (1)

Let’s look at the first point. MIA argues that networks facilitate connectivity with untapped populations, citing examples from the Obama campaign and the US Embassy in Jakarta as examples. Both the only thing these examples really prove is that for organizations to succeed, they most constantly innovate and adapt. It’s true that both actors were successful in this case because they mobilize untapped populations—but the world will likely change by 2025. MIA gives us no reason to believe that the conditions that exist now will exist in 2025, nor do they give us reason to believe that social networks determinants of success have so radically changed the way we communicate that new innovations cannot have the same effect.

Second, MIA argues that social network analysis yields greater efficiency in “reaching and measuring networked individuals.” That seems intuitive and obvious—but also somewhat tautological. The essence of this argument is, basically, that organizations are becoming more efficient because they are becoming more efficient. For the first time, data mining information on information is available. Our connections to one another, and the nature of them, are quantifiable and observable. That’s the real difference here that MIA fails to directly address. As a result, their argument leaves us wanting more—we again have no evidence that our connections will remain observable over time, and that these connections will be as critical to our behavior as they are now.

Both of these reasons seem to converge on MIA’s presentation of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). The PSI is a useful, interesting example of a network that has formed in response to an international environment that is both inflexible and immovable. But the weaknesses identified above are inherent in MIA’s presentation of this example. Because the argument fails to tell us why innovation will remain focused on networks, and because they fail to tell us how these networks will be observed in the future, we don’t really know what to make of PSI. Networks like this have emerged in the past, and on most occasions, they fail: nations, like other unitary actors, free ride, waiver in their commitments, and ultimately do what is in their interest irrespective of their informal commitments. That is perhaps why the PSI only includes half of the world’s countries; no country with a record of state-sponsored WMD trafficking has signed on. What happened to the ability of networks to tap into “untapped populations”?

In conclusion, our colleagues make many valid points, but they are far from convincing. We have indeed learned from their observations that social networks can help an organization. But so can good management, leadership, and financial incentives. The only difference is that the aforementioned have already proved they are critical to organizational success, while social networks have not. We have no reason to assume it will demonstrably take the upper hand in less than 20 years.

(1) http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/07/30/meet_the_new_foreign_policy_frontier_same_as_the_old_foreign_policy_frontier

Does W2W Mean Nothing To You?

Our fine colleagues take a very myopic view of social networks when they say that "Social networks, as they relate to organizational behavior, are based on the exploitation of weak ties for the purpose of spreading a particular message." The same set of people who staunchly supported forming issue-based groups after their analysis of W2W have now conveniently chosen to ignore one of the greatest advantages social networks have to offer; bringing the right people together to work on the right things. Social networks aren't merely a communication medium. They are the lifeblood of social and political efforts and an invaluable tool for discovering extraordinary synergies within organizations.

Civil Rights Movement: We appreciate Kevin Bacon's reference to the sit-ins led in the early 1960's. They are correct in their view that a few campus leaders are responsible for the proliferation of sit-ins throughout the American South. That being said, the success of sit-ins and the Civil Rights Movement is attributed more to collective action among a network than due to a "core of dedicated and trained activists." For instance, the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955 is an example of the power of a church-based network to effect social change. When Rosa Parks, secretary of the local NAACP, made the premeditated decision to break the law, she knew that staying power of the ensuing boycott depended upon the ability of the community to arrange a complex carpooling network.[1] And if network structure wasn't central to the Civil Rights Movement, then the death of Martin Luther King Jr. by an assassin's bullet in 1963 would have also meant the death of the landmark Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of 1964 and 1965 respectively.

Occupy: With respect to Occupy Wall Street, Kevin Bacon also rightly points out that social networks are not guarantors of organizational success. Supporting their argument, it is true that an attempted Belarusian Revolution led to a heavy handed response by Luschenko and the Chinese Government did not take kindly to a mass student protest in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Social networks and mass action movements can produce the antithesis of what its supporting elements seek to achieve. However, it is premature to categorize the Occupy Movement as a failure that lacks "clear demands." Just this week, organizers cited the "forgiveness of student debt" (amounted to a cool $500 billion dollars) as one of their core objectives.[2] One of our MIA group members even heard the pro-Capitalist "Forbes on Fox" commentators on the Fox News Channel give a fair hearing on this grievance. Therefore, it's too early to prejudice the real potential of the Occupy social network, especially as it continues to swell in size, to impact Federal Policy.

On particulars, our colleagues also misstep when equating a large network with a leaderless one. Social networks exist in all forms of organizations whether big or small, hierarchical or flat. Contrary to helping in forming leaderless organization, analysis of social networks can help identify potential leaders or groups by carefully looking at various parameters around in/out degree and eigenvector centrality. These networks, when analyzed affectively, can also lead to better-managed and well-targeted information flows in order to shield against information overload. Both of these notions were clearly exemplified during the analysis of W2W network when various teams looked at leveraging well-connected girls for specific issues that they were passionate about.

Other political movements have without a doubt been not only successful, but done so in a much shorter period of time than would have been possible without social media to empower social networks. Who would have guessed, for instance, at the first Tea Party Patriot rally in February of 2009 that the Tea Party Caucus – which has since used digital social networks to organize and recruit[3] – would come to dominate the old Republican guard in 2011, and bring us to the brink of both a government shutdown and debt default? Who would have guessed that a single act of defiance on a bus in 1955 would spark a social movement that would end de jure segregation in the United States just 9 years later?

Terrorism: If Kevin Bacon were correct in its contention that social networks are not the greatest source of organizational strength, then the "War on Terror" would not constitute the threat it does today. Its survival after the collapse of the Taliban in the Al Qaeda nerve center of Afghanistan can only be attributed to the weak ties "headquarters" had with its affiliates in countries all around the world. Conversely, the success of the United States military and intelligence services hinges on their ability to identify and destroy the terrorist "nodes" that have the highest degree centrality. The brilliance of terrorism is that it does not abide by geographic boundaries. Kevin Bacon correctly points out that passion and "purpose' can be the impetus for terrorism but terrorists are ineffectual without a vehicle to translate ideology and passion into organizational success.

A wealth of connections does not create a lack of focus; it creates an abundance of opportunities. For all the reasons provided, we reaffirm that since social networks are already the main driver of organizational success, and have been for decades, given new technology and an analysis discipline that continues to be refined, that will only become more critical by 2025.

---

[1]"Martin Luther King Jr. and the Global Freedom Struggle: Montgomery Bus Boycott 1955-1956." http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_montgomery_bus_boycott_1955_1956/

[2]Pilon, Mary. "Student-Loan Debt Among Top Occupy Wall Street Concerns." The Wall Street Journal Blog. October 12, 2011. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/12/student-loan-debt-among-top-occupy-wall-street-concerns/

[3] Corbin Hiar. “How the Tea Party Utilized Digital Media to Gain Power.” PBS Media Shift. October 28,2010. http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/10/how-the-tea-party-utilized-digital-media-to-gain-power301.html.

The Rise and Fall of Social Networks as Determinants of Organizational Success

Organizational (In)effectiveness

Our esteemed colleagues make a fine point in arguing that social networks are extremely influential. We agree that social networks have changed the way we think about how we communicate with each other, how we understand information flows, and how connections between (and amongst) individuals influence human behavior. But when it comes to thinking about organizational success, it's clear that not only are social networks not the main drivers, but they may actually hinder success.

Social networks, as they relate to organizational behavior, are based on the exploitation of weak ties for the purpose of spreading a particular message. The network is effective in infecting people with a particular idea, but how effective is it in organizing them to act upon this idea? All too often, not very much at all.

The renowned social scientist Herb Simon claims that a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention. We conclude similarly: a wealth of connections creates a poverty of focus. The larger the network, the more connections and information feed into the system. This makes it almost impossible to zero in on an agreed upon and well-defined course of action--especially at the rate information changes in our world today.

Building on Simon, Malcolm Gladwell writes that the absence of centralized leadership makes it difficult to achieve consensus and set goals. Because networks can’t think strategically, they are chronically prone to conflict and error.(1) Gladwell gives examples of the historical Civil-Rights “sit ins” of the 1960’s. Unkowingly, however, Mr. Gladwell agrees with our MIA colleagues when he says that the message spread like a fever through the network. But this is hardly the reason behind it's success: the “sit ins” rapidly spread to those cities with pre-existing “movement centers”—a core of dedicated and trained activists ready to turn the “fever” into action.(2)

Why look all the way into the past to prove that social networks don't necessarily contribute to the advancement of organizational goals? Consider two “historical” movements that sprung to action through social networks in the past few months.

The Occupy Wall Street movement in the U.S. managed to bring thousands of activists to the streets of New York City to demand social change. But the movement's spread created an absence of organization in this case. A lack of leadership and organization has left this phenomenon with no clear demands and direction. Similarly, just this August in Israel, almost one-sixth of the population participated in some form of collective action against high cost of living; the protest spread through a young woman’s Facebook post. Though the movement managed to get the attention of the government who reached out to the protesters, no significant progress has yet to be made. The government showed willingness to negotiate a solution, but an extended hand will not get you far without a negotiating partner. Internal bickering, power struggles, and the absence of clearly defined roles and goals on behalf of the people is the reason the government is still waiting.

Organizational Success is about Getting the Message Right

Organizational success is first and foremost founded on a meaningful mission-statement, or the reason for an organization’s existence. For example, the US Army’s mission-statement is “to fight and win our nations wars”; this short, yet powerful line is the driving force behind how the US Army recruits soldiers and trains, equips, organizes, and conducts military operations. Without a clear purpose to exist, organizations, from loosely organized terrorist cells to the most rigid and bureaucratic organizations like the US military, would lack the requisite foundation to function successfully. According to Roger Ingbretsen, innovation, entrepreneurship, and organizational structure are critical indicators in organizational success. This would include best practices in integrating social media technology into the workplace, such as Intellipedia and A-Space, both used by the US intelligence community to increase collaboration among intelligence professionals. However, Ingbretsen posits that greater factors in organizational success are a compelling vision, a solid strategy to achieve the mission, and organizational values. (3)

There is little disagreement in the importance of social networks in an organization’s success; however as noted by Clay Shirky, “Social tools don’t create collective action, they merely remove the obstacles to it." (4) According to a recent Tufts report on terrorist recruiting on the internet, this is also the case. The report cites a Department of Homeland Security analysis that young, military age males surfing the internet are drawn to violent extremist websites for primarily three reasons: they may come across radical content while searching for entertainment; they may be seeking information on ideologies, traditions or heritage related matters associated with the radical group; they may be looking for a community with which they can self-identify. (5) So although these affected youth may have found al-Qaeda through social networks and the internet, it was al-Qaeda’s resonating message that served as the prime-mover in the recruiting process and the overall organizational success and to a lesser degree social media and networks.

The key take-away is that although social networks are a critical factor in the overall success of any organization, it is still secondary to a clear and concise organizational purpose. This certainly has not changed nor will it by 2025.

References

(1) Gladwell, Malcolm, Small Change - why the revolution will not be tweeted, The New Yorker, October 2010

(2) ibid.

(3) http://www.ingbretsen.com/articles/organizational-development-seven-drivers-of-organizational-success/113.htm

(4) Shirky, Clay; Here Comes Everybody, p 159, Penguin Books 2008

(5)Terrorist Recruitment in Cyberspace: Evolving Approaches from Web 1.0 to 2.0; PESHALA WIMALASENA, MAR 2011, Tufts University

Kevin Bacon Is So 90's: Social Networks Are the Wave of the 21st Century

Too often social networking tools like Facebook and Twitter are seen as being the only examples of social networks. And while they are the wonderful combination of increased access, new technology, true social networks exist outside of these platforms in every day life, business, politics and economics. Through incontrovertible examples, we will affirm that the largest barometer of organizational success by 2025 will be the ability of organizations to expand their connectivity—with or without the help of social networking technologies. We readily concede that social networks are not agents for change taken alone. Human interaction, or what Clay Shirkey calls the “environmental approach” is a prerequisite for change and social networks are immensely helpful tools to accomplish an organizational goal. “Social media tools are not a replacement for real-world action but a way to coordinate it.”[1] However, what is indisputable is that in the 21^st Century information age, the organizations that are best positioned for success are those that utilize and maximize social networks.

Facilitate Connectivity with Previously Untapped Populations

Political campaigns in the U.S. and abroad have been revolutionized by the fact that social networks are so critical – and this trend is continuing. Barack Obama adopted a social networking model of political organizing in 2007-2008 that was unique to those employed by his chief rivals, Senators Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Superior to precinct-captain hierarchical model whose success depends upon one individual with a gigantic “out degree” of connectivity, Obama’s “team based model” was horizontal with every member of the clique interconnected and capitalizing on their varied attributes. The reach of this network approach was not only more expansive but the de-emphasis on a singular node made it less susceptible to collapse. Given the indisputable success of Obama’s network, political campaigns of this decade and next will substitute archaic forms of organization for network theory.

Depiction of Obama's "Neighborhood Teams"

In the arena of public diplomacy, the United States Government has capitalized on the power of social networks to tap into previously unreached populations. The U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia directs a Facebook page that boasts over 300,000 members helping to facilitate reciprocal exchange and dialogue with Indonesian citizens. For Indonesians in the 18-35 demographic, the Facebook page is their only source of news about the United States. [2] It’s effectiveness is evidenced by the fact that more Indonesians are “fans” of the Embassy page than of other Facebook pages that are more critical of the United States. Additionally, the Embassy’s Facebook administrators’ are able to capture vital demographic data (such as age, gender, political views) from those who become “fans” on the Embassy’s Facebook page. [3] The major advantage is that the U.S. Government is using a social network to facilitate wider contact with a young Indonesia population that can serve as a foundation for deeper diplomatic face-to-face interactions.

Greater Efficiency In Reaching and Measuring Networked Individuals

‘Birds of a feather flock together’, is an old adage that succinctly captures the tendencies of individuals to bond over shared values and ideas. Leveraging social networks in this context is playing a key role in identifying new clients by grouping them based on shared characteristics, like wealth. This has allowed organizations to develop tailored campaigns better suited to the tastes of potential clients resulting in ‘five times higher efficiency than traditional client acquisition systems’.[4] For instance, this firm identified key people to target by introducing a notion of ‘Most Valuable Persons’ using social networks of rich clients:

In the same context, analysis of social networks has brought together groups and individuals working “on common problems thus shaving years off research and honing corporate strategies”[5]. As the preceding footnote shows, Boston Consulting Group has created propriety software for this purpose. This methodology is an invaluable tool not only for gaining a better understanding of the competitive environment but also to exploit untapped opportunities for cooperation. In a constantly evolving global economy where participants have to deal with immense information overload, such actionable knowledge becomes critical for success.

The Next Frontier: Nations as Nodes in Social Networks

The Proliferation Security Initiative is an example of a successful social network-based initiative among organizations that will be popularized by 2025. It demonstrates how a decentralized network of states can enforce an international treaty more effectively than bureaucracies charged with enforcement. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is a non-binding pledge among over 90 countries that allows (with permission) a state to intercept an inbound vessel suspected of carrying illicit weapon materials. The brilliance of the PSI Network is that there is no Secretariat or hierarchical governing body to enforce the pledge. It is feasible that future multilateral agreements will favor this model to international treaties that offer similar “club goods” but who have burdensome bureaucratic oversight (i.e. UN Security Council/WTO, etc.). Recent research supports this notion:

“Through networks, organizations can quickly and efficiently work with one another to achieve specific goals that require combined resources and expertise that hierarchies alone could not readily accomplish. These same organizations can reduce or even break their current relationships and develop ties to others, as needs and tasks change. This flexibility allows networked organizations to respond quickly to competition and other environmental threats, as well as to opportunities.”[6]

Security agreements such as PSI can be put into force immediately without ratification, and its mission of deterring the transfer of illicit materials is achieved through the reciprocal ties and information sharing among nations. PSI Members can also detect if a bad actor is attempting to import “dual use” materials that would go undetected absent direct communication. While Article II of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) prohibits the transfer of weapons technology to non-nuclear weapons states, the bureaucratic framework of international law to verify compliance is less efficient than PSI’s. For instance, while the hierarchical United Nations Security Council (UNSC) must go through time-consuming, resource draining steps to conduct investigations and ultimately achieve unanimity to determine guilt of a member. However, interdiction under PSI’s informal social network allows for immediate action outside the Security Council while a state is in the act of violating Article 2 of NPT. The sharing of information among nation members more freely also allows for to more efficiently identify those not in compliance.

The world already seen how the role of social networks has changed politics, international agreements, foreign policy and marketing. And while they will continue to be defined and better understood over the next fourteen years, they will play an even more prolific role in organizational success.

---

[1] Shirkey, Clay. “The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change.” Foreign Affairs. January/February 2011.

[2] Ciolek, Melanie, “Understanding Social Media’s Contribution to Public Diplomacy: How Embassy Jakarta’s Facebook Outreach Illuminates the Limitations and Potential for the State Department’s Use of Social Media,” URL: < http://mountainrunner.us/2010/06/ciolek.html>. June 17, 2010

[3] Ibid

[4] http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/nov2007/id20071114_879795.htm

[5] http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/11/1115_in_network/index_01.htm

[6] Provan and Kenis. Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. JPART 18:244. 2005.