« six degrees? really? | Main | A call that may be of interest »

April 11, 2005

VP Jones of the Petroleum Company

In the PDFed article by Cross et. al. "Knowing What We Know: Supporting Knowledge Creation and Sharing in Social Networks," I thought it was especially evident that the convergence of hierarchical structures with network models doesn't automatically alter the inner-workings of the hierarchy. 

I suppose that's the primary purpose for conducting social network analysis within corporations, yeah? In the case of Vice President Jones of the Petroleum Company, for example, the non-connector position could be advantageous.  Upper administrators who are directly linked to connectors (Cole, the most highly connected) can self-select their interventions in the spheres of access, knowledge, engagement and safety.  In other words, VP Jones--from the well-paid periphery, upwards in the organization's ranks--enjoys the luxury of moderating his own accessibility, the circulation of knowledge, engagement and safety/confidentiality. Of course, according Cross et.al.'s study, they concluded that "Jones had become too removed, and his lack of responsiveness frequently held the entire network back when important decisions needed to be made" (106).

Yet I'm interested that it's possible for a VP to buffer hirself from the most active locations in the network structure.  This suggests distinct types of capital; the VP isn't paid less for not being a connector.  And yet connectors--in many cases--would seem to bear a considerably greater labor burden:

Social network analysis showed that four months after the transition to teams, several key people had become significantly overburdened, as they were heavily sought out by both their past functional colleagues as well as their new team members. In particular, we found that the people who were reputed experts in their area were tapped for advice to such an extent that they were falling behind on their own work. (113)

Posted by dmueller at April 11, 2005 03:36 PM

Comments

Derek, not be cynical here, but no where in the article is VP Jones identified as a "reputed expert" -- nor is his presence as an obstacle in the communcation and knowledge sharing systems explained. I'm going to venture a guess that Jones was an obstacle simply because of his/her position. It appears from what Cross states that the "work" continued regardless of Jones' distance from knowledge creation/knowledge sharing activities. What Cross provided to Jones was a means to re-engage with the "shop floor" activities. But it assumes that Jones was simply a victim of the VP position -- removed from locations where the real work was being done.

Again, I really think that Cross et al don't give enough credence to the human element of organizational structures. VPs like Jones are too common and not necessarily passive actors in their removal and isolation from particular activities within the organization.

This all sounds entirely negative, but I'm struggling with this thread in the Cross article that assumes the people within the system/network/processes are interchangeable. In the examples of Cole and Jones, the authors conclude that adjustments in proximity and access can correct for bottlenecks and obstacles. Such corrections, however, tend to be temporary if you fail to address the underlying behaviors that caused the removal/centralization in the first place.

Posted by: mike at April 12, 2005 09:22 AM

I find your reading interesting, Mike. By association, I was situating Jones along with some of the other higher-ups I've known who thought they'd worked hard enough for long enough to *deserve* a well-paid spot near the edge, once removed from the most active, engaged (safe, etc.) connector(s). And so I suppose overlaying one of the social network maps with a salary map might reveal precisely this problem you point out: "adjustments in proximity and access can correct for bottlenecks and obstacles," but not without upsetting deeply entrenched positions with considerable (perhaps irrecoverable) structural upheaval.

Posted by: Derek at April 12, 2005 11:08 AM

That is the trick -- not upsetting the entrenched positions. I think we're essentially reading the same thing from the Jones scenario. I'm just hung up on what Cross "isn't" saying about Jones-types in any organization.

Posted by: mike at April 12, 2005 04:15 PM