Woot - Constructive Againt

We begin with the statement that all organizations are composed of networks, but not all networks are organizations. While a network can be strong or weak, based on cultural, linguistic, or other affinities, used for disseminating ideas or simply arising out of geographic proximity, an organization is intentionally structured with the aim of achieving a specific goal. A network is a resource that can be used by an organization to accomplish that organization’s goals, but it is not the only - and not the most - important feature of the organization. In this post, we make three related arguments to counter the resolution of this debate:

1. Social networks cannot be the “main driver” of “organizational success” because they lack a key feature of organizations: A unified goal, maintained over time and prioritized over individual desires.
2. Social networks cannot be “recognized as the main drivers of organizational success”, because the recognition required cannot be achieved in the social sciences.
3. While a social network might be extensive and diverse, key decisions that drive the direction and success of an organization are most often made by a small group of leaders connected by strong ties and united around a common goal.

First, social networks cannot be the main driver of “organizational success” because they lack a key feature of organizations: a unified goal maintained over time and prioritized over individual desires. In this regard, social networks are composed of individuals with different priorities who are connected to one another by any number of attributes or modes of communication. But without a common goal, there is no organization, and without an organization, there can be no “organizational success.” As advanced by Herbert A. Simon in The Proverbs of Administration, social networks can play an orienting role by connecting people and sometimes disseminating information, but they are not coherent actors that work for a specific purpose, and thus cannot be considered the “main driver” of an organization’s success.

As a current example, it is helpful to consider the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. There is no denying that OWS represents a network of individuals connected through both strong and weak ties. As a network, it has disseminated ideas and information quite effectively; it has also been able to organize individuals to the extent of bringing them to the same place at the same time, and establishing some systems to make the “occupations” of certain areas last. However, OWS is not an organization in the way that this debate is considering them: the members of the OWS network have dozens of different (and often competing) goals, and have failed to prioritize any one of these goals above the others. As stated in the Huffington post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mohamed-a-elerian/occupy-wall-street-_b_1004222.html

“OWS could (and, hopefully, will) coalesce on a common agenda, helping the current political and institutional setup to course correct. Alternatively, it could fragment, thus failing to make the tricky transition from a protest movement to an effective agent for much needed change.”

Without a cohesive, prioritized set of goals and proper leadership, OWS will never become a “successful” organization. So while their network is a critical factor in their development, the transition into a mature and successful organization will require clearly defined goals and leadership structure. At its current stage, OWS clearly demonstrates that social networks fall far short of being the “main driver” of organizational success since they have thus far failed to coalesce around a coherent set of goals.

Second, social networks cannot be “recognized as the main drivers of organizational success” because the consensus required for recognition is unlikely to emerge. Popular recognition is most often achieved only after an idea receives the stamp of legitimacy from a critical mass of recognized experts in relevant fields. Barring that approval, the idea lacks intellectual credibility, and will not gain significant traction in the general populace. In other words, expert recognition precedes popular recognition.

Achieving expert recognition requires that we have the tools necessary to accurately measure the impact of social networks on organizational success, and to compare that impact to other factors that might contribute to success. Therefore, the lack of reliable instruments and a broader methodology to accurately measure the impact and causal influence of social networks on organizational success is a major impediment to their recognition as the main driver of such success. In this context, the claims by the Pro Team that social networks expand an organization’s access to resources, reduce costs and increase the speed of certain transactions, and improve access to end consumers, is a broad assertion that social networks play some role in organizational success, but offers no way to quantify this contribution, let alone prove the declaration that social networks are the “main driver “of success.

Next, while a social network might be extensive and diverse, key decisions that drive the direction and success of an organization are most often made by a small group of leaders connected by strong ties and united around a common goal. Leaders or key players in an organization may draw from the information created by their network as a starting point for analysis, but final and complicated decisions are made amongst trusted associates and peers. Boards of directors, political committees, and focus groups all point to the necessity of a small, specialized group within a larger whole that is tasked with a given goal. Moreover, as argued by Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker in October 2010, “Small Change,” (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all), traditional organizational structures are necessary in order to reach a consensus, develop hierarchical lines of authority and responsibilities, set goals, and make difficult choices about strategy, tasks that decentralized social networks are not set up to do.

Obviously, a well networked organization will have advantages over a sprawling bureaucracy; however, a strong network does not equate to deep network of trust, or a well established leadership structure that is far more essential in facilitating organizational success. In looking at some of the most successful modern organizations such as Apple, Teach for America, Dell, Microsoft, Facebook, and others, they were all started and heavily reliant on a single individual who, due to incredible insight and force of will and character, reshaped their world/industry and developed incredibly successful organizations. These companies and movements were not successful because they grew out of some fantastical synergy of people exchanging ideas but on the strength of an idea and the leadership advancing that concept.

Finally, within the political realm, we wish to draw attention to a tendency among social network proponents to misrepresent the extent to which social networking tools such as Facebook and Twitter can instigate long-lasting political and social change. An important distinction needs to be made in discussing this topic. As alluded to by Malcolm Gladwell (writing before the Arab Spring) and discussed by Shehab Chowdhury (http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/luc/2011/06/arab-spring-a-not-so-twitvolution/), social media platforms are not providing the foundations for revolution in the Arab world; such an explanation undervalues the true drivers of the uprisings, such as the lack of job opportunity, rampant corruption, failed promises in economic reform, and limited political freedom, among others. It is more accurate to say that social networking tools are playing an enabling role in these revolutions, but not an inspirational one. The main drivers of protest movements are ideology and concrete political concerns; while aided by a broad network, they are not primarily network-driven movements. Facebook and Twitter did not spur these revolutions, but rather helped facilitate the spread of already developed ideas and popular discontent.

Gladwell provides a useful example to this discussion. He examines the development of protests following the disputed presidential elections in Iran in June 2009. In this case, many observers argued that social networking tools, especially Twitter, were key in the organization of demonstrations (though even this assertion has been questioned as the majority of Tweets related to Iran were by Westerners and in English, rather than by Iranians in Farsi). However, the protests led by the reformist-oriented Green Movement were forcefully suppressed by the Iranian regime and failed in part due to a lack of traditional, on-the-ground organization and cohesion on the part of the opposition movement, demonstrating the limitations of social networking tools where an organized strategy and recognized leadership are not in place.

Social networks have always been, and will continue to be, a critical component in the development and success of all kinds of organizations across various sectors. However, a social network in the absence of an organization - itself defined by the prioritization of certain goals and the existence of a leadership structure - is incapable of being the “main driver” of organizational success. Finally, the fact that we are unable and, indeed, have never been able to measure the contribution of social networks to organizational success relative to other factors, means that the recognition required to argue in favor of this debate’s resolution cannot be achieved. The resolution cannot be defended.