The process of SNA seems like it would be a lot fun to work through. I’d venture that most of us have been formally or informally involved in some of these activities (particularly mapping knowledge sources for a particular project). And yet, after all the analysis is done, the success of the action plan rests on the people involved. The concept of safety within the social network is really just the degree to which a person is comfortable with their own skills, talents, knowledge, and position within the organization. As Cross et al notes, the better leaders were those who modeled information seeking and sharing – leaders who were, no doubt, completely confident that their expressing a lack of knowledge in a particular area did not compromise their position within the organization.

My point is that the results of any analysis intended to identify knowledge sources and knowledge sharing process will ultimately rest on the people involved. The example of Cole isn’t so much about the people around him knowing that he was the “go to guy” than it was about him actively working to increase his value to the organization. It is human nature for most people in organizations to centralize knowledge—to improve their relevancy in regard to what they know and do for others—in order to increase their value to the organization. If this wasn’t the case, consultants like Cross et al wouldn’t be pulling down huge $$$ to perform SNA in Fortune 500 organizations.
Again, I think there is some real value behind SNA. It has implications across organizations of any size and seems to lend itself to online learning analysis—specifically how communication networks form in regard to and against knowledge sources. I just think Cole et al could have given more credence to the human element of the networks they analyze.

I had an exceptional boss/mentor who once told me: “The best processes in the world are only as good as the people who perform them.” That’s the Derridian thing I’m stuck on. The people behind the process—the makers and users of Derrida’s knowledge—will work to locate and place value on different aspects of the system. Those values, it seems to me, are and can be often be conflicting and problematic.