John Constantine writes in Networking... LO7828:
>In re the subject of networks and networking...have such not been around
>since creation? Are organizations not "successful" based upon their
>success at networking (in its many forms)? How then do we breed better
>managers, more adept and attuned to the joys and advantages of
>networking?
Yes, indeed, there is widespread agreement that networks have been
around since the beginning of time. But they are also suddenly new,
both because their power is finally receiving recognition and because
of the explosion of communications technology. In an electronic
instant, the bounds of space and time have become all but irrelevant.
Technology networks feed the growth of people networks.
I agree, John, that managers learning how to become better networkers
is a key organizational advantage. Likewise, organizations that
become better networks are doing better than those that cling only
to hierarchy and bureaucracy. Maybe in the end the organization of
choice for the 21st century will not be called the "network" but its
characteristics will likely be similar--interdependent autonomous
members who work with clear purpose using multiple communications
media across boundaries.
Which brings me to Valdis E. Krebs' note--Informal Networks LO7829:
(Valdis, by the way, is such an expert on this subject that he
might as well have done a book--yea, Valdis!)
>Jessica, what do you mean by explicit? Our clients have been successful
>in recognizing and supporting exisiting informal networks and leaders --
>this >is their/our definition of explicit [recognition and support].
>
And rather than reproduce the rest of Valdis's note, here's my
capsule response to all his great points:
What I mean by making networks explicit is this: The only thing
that holds a network together is shared commitment to common
purpose. Without the force of hierarchy ("do what I say or I'll fire
you") or the rules and regs of bureaucracy ("but the policy book
says"), networks can only fall back on what their members hold
in common. You can't order anyone to be in a network.
So...spending time on purpose is a very valuable activity for people
in a network. Likewise, coming back to the purpose, mining it for
all it is worth, and revising it is critical to network clarity.
This leads to being clear about who is in the network, what everyone
is doing, and what the desired results are.
Now I am ducking because I can see the next barrel of tomatoes
being thrown my way. Does this mean that the network becomes
just like any other old ossified form of organization? Not at all. The very
delicate dance here is holding clear purpose without it becoming
doctrine, involving a fluid set of members without being exclusive,
and carrying out concrete work without being a slave to deliverables
that are no longer needed.
In short, networks require a high degree of tolerance for ambiguity
and change, as Valdis says, fluidity without rigidity. It's very
tricky but it can work to great effect.
**************************
Jessica Lipnack <jlipnack@netage.com>
The Networking Institute, Inc., 505 Waltham Street, West Newton, MA 02165 USA
Tel: 617/965-3340 Fax: 617/965-2341 Web page: http://www.netage.com
***************************
--jlipnack@netage.com (Jessica Lipnack)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>