For most of our adult lives we've often realized that "who you know" is oftentimes more important than "what you know" when it comes to landing that hot new job. Those individuals possessing wider social networks increase their chances of rapid career advancement at a seemingly higher level than those individuals who knock on an organization's door with nothing more than a resume in hand.
Social networking, defined by wikipedia as "social structures made of nodes (which are generally individuals or organizations) that are tied by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as values, visions, ideas, friendship, kinship" etc. (essentially the "family tree" of the organization I guess), is no longer solely an individual activity. Businesses and other organizations are rapidly realizing the benefits "social networking," can bring to their environment and are leveraging the collective social capital to increase productivity, allow for innovation, or make possible a strategic advantage or edge in some way.
Wikipedia describes these benefits (a.k.a social capital) of the social network better than I can: To illustrate more fully, "just as a screwdriver (physical capital) or a college education (human capital) can increase productivity (both individual and collective), so too social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups."
"To collaborate or not to collaborate?" that then becomes the question. For any business challenged with innovation or in need of sustaining a competitive advantage, collaboration of employees across functional, organizational (and sometimes physical) boundaries can often yield extremely successful results. Ask the makers of the cancer drug Gleevec for their success story in bringing the drug to market and you'll find "it would not have possible without help from diverse external connections" (A practical Guide to Social Networks, Cross, et. al., Harvard Business Review) that allowed the makers to develop and manufacture the drug in record time.
Ask Glamour Editor Erin Zammett Ruddy (http://www.glamour.com/lifestyle/blogs/editor) who has been blogging about her battle with cancer and her success with the drug Gleevac for several years now and you'll see that "diverse external connections" continue to promote the personal benefits of the drug for those with CML. This is truly a product whose entire existence and life cycle would not have been possible without a collaborative, social environment.
While I find myself intrigued by and drawn to idea of networking and collaborative endeavors (both personal and organizational), I hesitate to throw myself whole-heartedly into such situations where no express goal or value exist to support the extra effort. It's not that I'm selfish, or that I actually see an I in team. Instead I realize that without the full support of everyone in and around the network and organizations who seek to create, maintain (and above all, diagram) a social network, the extra burden of effort can quickly cause employee dissolution and burn out. I do believe that collaboration is a fine art these days and that with the proper planning, support, desire and organizational mechanisms in place, individuals can greatly benefit from social networks and organizations can reap high capital rewards.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Absolutely true Bloggle, you will need complete support of everyone in and around the network to be successful especially in the corporate environments. I would think (in corporate environment), initially one can take a step ahead, lead the effort and start the revolution to spread their thoughts. My point is here how you would know whether you have the support or not until you don’t start to communicate and spread your idea.
idle wits makes a good point. the network is there to give your idea the ears it needs, but ultimately, you are right; without express cooperation among the members, it may not end up anywhere.
bloggle, do you remember one of our first classes where they mentioned diversification in groups leading to greater results? I forget which one it was, maybe it was the HR class? It stated that those types of groups (networks) took longer to learn to work together, but when they finally did, the array of differing perspectives and skillsets actually helped bring about greater results and successes. Your post reminded me of this.
Well bloggle, "It's who you know, not what you know" is an age old cliche. However, I would caution against this glib notion. At some point, Mr. or Miss fabulous networker will need to "know something". If you are the best in your field combined with great social skills and combined with good looks and personality then you really have an upwardly mobility!
Too Bloggle's question "To collaborate or not to collaborate?"- my thoughts are that we don't actually have a conscious choice. We are all part of a social network at work- like it or not, and for better or worse. To Bloggle's point- Management must be sure to convey the goals of collaboration and how doing so will benefit the employee- (promotion, recognition) as well as the organization.
interesting story!! i agree that its important to join a online social network or group that is governed by a purpose. i believe that in order to reap fruitful results of these online collaborations its significant that these groups are driven by a goal, are planned,organized and prevented from getting of track.
Post a Comment