Having trouble building connections within an organization? You might be using the wrong strategy.
Professional networking—building interpersonal connections among colleagues or professionals—can take many forms and occur across organizations within an industry. Building a professional network takes time and effort, and when a member joins or leaves an organization, that person’s network usually needs to be rebuilt in a new work environment.
Professional networks serve similar functions in different organizations—information sharing, mentorship, opportunities, job benefits, and other functions—yet the methods and reasons for building specific connections within an organization may differ between traditional and open organizations. These differences have implications: how colleagues connect, how trust is established, the degree and type of diversity within the organization, and the ability to establish cooperation—all these factors are interrelated, and they participate in and shape the social networks people build.
An open organization’s emphasis on inclusivity can make social networks more efficient at solving business problems than traditional hierarchical organizations. This concept has a long history in open source thinking. For example, in The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric Raymond wrote: “Many years ago, sociologists discovered that, compared to the view of a randomly selected observer, the common view of many equally professional (or equally ignorant) observers is a much more reliable prediction.” So let’s understand how the structure and purpose of social networks affect the values of various organizations.
Social Networks in Traditional Organizations
When I work in a traditional organization and describe what I do for work, the first thing people ask me about is my relationship with others (usually director-level leaders). “Do you work under Sheila?” they’ll ask. “Do you work for Malcolm?” This implies viewing the role of traditional organizations from a hierarchical perspective; when trying to arrange work or employees, people want to understand the network structure from a hierarchical perspective.
In other words, in traditional organizations, social networks rely on hierarchical structures, so they follow each other. In fact, even figuring out where an employee sits in the network can be considered a “hierarchical organization” concern.
However, not all potential hierarchies are like this. It also depends on the people involved. The focus on hierarchical networks determines an employee’s “value” in the network, because the network itself is a system of ongoing power relationships that positions people differently based on their different levels of value. It downplays the importance of individual abilities and skills. Therefore, a person’s connections in a traditional organization make their capabilities forward-looking, well-known, influential, and supportive in their career.
Compared to traditional hierarchical organizations, an open organization’s emphasis on inclusivity can make networks more efficient at solving business problems.
Traditional organizations’ formal structures determine employees’ social networks in specific ways—some may be advantages, some may be disadvantages, depending on the specific context—for example:
- It’s easier to more quickly understand “who’s who” and see how people relate (usually this builds trust networks within specific levels).
- Typically, this further understanding of relationships means less redundant work (projects have clear corresponding owners within a specific network) and less over-communication (people know who’s responsible for communicating what).
- Relevant people may feel powerless in a power structure, or as if they can’t “break into” the power structure; these structures sometimes (or more often) don’t work due to layoffs.
- Completing large amounts of work and effort is difficult, and cooperation can be tough.
- Power transfer is slow; a person’s ability to participate is determined more by the alignment of networks created by the hierarchical structure than by other factors (like personal ability), reducing what’s seen as community and member benefits.
- Competition seems clearer; understanding “who’s competing for what” usually occurs within a recognized, defined hierarchical structure (the lack of positions in power networks increases competition, so competition is more intense).
- When stricter networks determine the limits of flexibility, adaptability is impaired. The network’s “long-held wishes” and limits of cooperation are similarly affected.
- In strict networks, direction is clear, and leaders usually manage through over-guidance; here, disruption is more likely to occur.
- When social networks are less flexible, risk decreases; people know what needs to happen, how it happens, when it happens (but considering the breadth of work in an organization, this isn’t always “bad”; some work functions require less risk, such as: HR management, corporate mergers and acquisitions, and legal work).
- Trust in the network is greater, especially when employees are part of the formal network (when someone isn’t part of the network, excluded individuals may be particularly difficult to manage or correct).
Social Networks in Open Organizations
Although open organizations necessarily have hierarchical structures, they don’t operate based on that network. Their professional network structures are more flexible (or “ad-hoc”).
In an open organization, when I describe what I do for work, almost no one asks me “Who do I work for?” An open organization is more peer-centered than leader-centered. Open values like inclusivity and specific governance systems like meritocracy help with this; it’s not who you know but what you know, how you use it (for example: “bottom-up design”). In an open organization, I don’t feel I’m struggling to demonstrate my value; my ideas have intrinsic value. Sometimes I have to demonstrate why using my ideas is more useful than using others’—but that means I’m diagnosing myself within a community of colleagues (including leadership), rather than being diagnosed separately by top-down leadership.
So, open organizations don’t evaluate employees based on networks, but based on their understanding of colleagues as individuals. Does this person have ideas? Will she work hard to realize those ideas using open organization values (leading them) (that is, sharing those ideas in open organizations and practicing work that includes others and is transparent, etc.)?
Open organizations also structure social networks in specific ways (which similarly may be very beneficial or very harmful depending on individual purpose and desire), including:
- People are more responsible for their networks, reputation, skills, and careers.
- Competition (for resources, power, promotion, etc.) becomes less because these organizations are naturally more cooperative. The best outcome is negotiation, not a single win, and competition sharpens ideas without building fences between people.
- Power is more fluid and dynamic, flowing between people (but this also means there may be misunderstandings about accountability or responsibility, and activities may not be completed due to lack of clear ownership).
- Trust is built “one colleague at a time” without relying on social networks where people are positioned.
- Networks self-configure in diverse operations and events, reactively self-starting at every opportunity (this helps with renewal but can cause chaos because who’s making decisions and who’s “in control” is less clear).
- Execution speed decreases in chaotic environments because what’s being done, how it’s being done, and when it’s being done require leadership in setting goals and cultivating well-prepared employees.
- Flexible social networks also increase change and risk; ideas flow faster and more magically, and execution is more confident.
- Trust is built on colleague cooperation (as it should be!), not on respect for structure.
Making It Work
If you’re considering transitioning from one organizational structure to another, think about the following when building and maintaining your professional network.
Tips from Traditional Organizations
- Structure and control over decisions isn’t bad; operational frameworks need to be clear and transparent, and decision-makers need to consider their decisions.
- Emphasis on execution requires managers to provide focus, and also requires the ability to filter out any distracting or confusing matters while still providing enough context.
- Established networks help large groups of people work synchronously and manage risk.
Tips from Open Organizations
- Capable leaders are those who can provide different levels of transparency and guidance based on diverse styles and different preferences for colleagues and teams, without building inflexible networks.
- Great ideas win more than established organizations.
- People are more responsible for their reputation.
- The flow of ideas and information is key to change. Relationship networks in loose organizations can make these two elements occur more frequently and broadly.
Reposted from: Developer Relations »
