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
No comments:
Post a Comment