Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
(This paper was communicated to the Social Network Analysis Conference 2008 hosted by Tata
Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai on Dec 26-27, 2008)
Abstract
Recent developments in society and business have triggered the emergence of new
forms of organizations, beyond the traditional hierarchical form. A study of
contemporary literature and industry practices reveals the following distinct forms:
hierarchical, ambidextrous, collaborative, learning and emergent. Simultaneously,
embedded within organizations are different types of social networks. Our research
indicates classifications of social networks along three key dimensions - the type of
response generated by these networks (customized response, modular response and
routine response), the centrality of the networks (ego-centric, socio-centric and
open networks) and the network architecture (centralized networks, request-based
networks, hub-swarms and swarms).This paper examines the relevance of social
network types to organizational forms. We have designed a survey instrument based
on the Analytic Hierarchy Process to solicit opinions of experts in the above areas.
Preliminary results of this initial survey clearly indicate that specific combinations
of social network types are found in particular organization forms. Potential
applications of this study towards organizational design and transformation are also
explored in the paper.
Introduction
The changing shape and form of organizations is a topic of considerable interest in recent times.
The reasons for the changes are multi-fold. Some argue that these changes have been
necessitated by the phenomenon of hyper-competition [1] that characterizes the nature of
disorder, stress and unpredictability that is confronting modern organizations. This phenomenon
is seen to arisen from the shift in economic growth cycles from the post-war economy to the new
economy based on technological drivers of information, communication and technology [2].
Along similar lines, others have pointed out that modern organizations are driven by
discontinuity rather than continuation and stabilization [3].
Along with competitive drivers, changes to organization form and shape have also been
influenced by social factors – primarily the organizational culture and climate, with its emphasis
on attitudes, values, feelings and social processes [5]. Organizational culture and climate are
greatly influenced by the leadership of the organization. At the same time they also get impacted
by prevalent cultures and climate in other organizations as well as by overall trends in social
culture.
Irrespective of the specific factors driving organizational change, it is clear that in the recent
past, new organizational forms have emerged. These new forms offer insights for organizational
design and change and are being seen as key drivers for innovation and growth.
Recent renewed interest in social network theory is a result of the new evidence that the way
large group of people behave collectively is not in a hierarchical structured manner as desired by
the proponents of hierarchical organization designers. In fact, the natural way we behave is more
close to a messy world of networks of complex connections. The new studies have shown variety
of social structures and processes that govern overall behavior of a group of population. These
social processes lead to different type of emergent properties that cannot be easily established by
studying only local individual interactions. This is in fact the hallmark of complex systems [26]
These two interesting trends of emerging new organization forms and various social network
structures – intuitively seem to be linked in some form. To study these relationships we have
used a framework based on the methodology of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [24, 25]. This
paper describes the framework and the initial results obtained so far. The paper is organized in
following sections – Section 2 gives a brief overview of emerging new organization forms and
also gives our understanding and for the purpose of this study our classification of the new
organization forms. In Section 3, an overview of various social network types and basis of these
different types are described. It also describes our understanding and classification of social
network types. Section 4, describes the methodology based on the AHP. Section 5 describes the
framework derived from the analysis of results obtained in the previous section. The paper ends
with Section 6 where potential applications of the framework are discussed and future steps are
identified.
a) Ambidextrous Organization
b) Collaborative Organization
c) Learning Organization
d) Emergent Organization
Three levels of collaborative work systems have been defined [7], each level increasing the
organization‟s capacity to serve its customers, employees and owners with an increase in
investment and results moving from left to right:
a) Traditional Teams
b) Team-based organizations
c) Collaborative Organizations
Learning organizations use the following building blocks [13] to institutionalize learning:
Emergent organizations are characterized by extra-ordinary decentralization [15]. They have also
therefore been described as open or boundary-less organizations or structures. The behavior of
emergent organizations is seen to bear similarities with swarm behavior seen in the natural
world, e.g. the intelligence embedded in the behavior of swarms of ants [16].
Much of recent evolution of social networks as a consequence of the growth in size, utility and
connectivity of the internet is being studied from the perspective of learning and application to
organizations. For instance, the development of user communities or information communities
has opened up multiple avenues for new businesses and business models (EBay, Google Ads).
Organizations have looked at emergent strategies to identify new products or services through
lead user innovations [17]. There are also interesting explorations of how a relatively small
number of key opinion influencers in social networks can determine the overall outcome or
direction of change for that network [18].
Table 1 summarizes the key differences between the five organization forms.
According to [21], social scientists have studied three types of networks – the ego centric, socio-
centric and open networks. The characteristics of the three types are shown in Table 3.
Customized Response Open Swarms (CROSs): These types of social networks usually do not
have any clear boundaries (they are open). They have nearly identical nodes in terms of their
capabilities and authority. These nodes come together to respond to problems through a process
of creating shared awareness, quickly formulating the problems and solving problems by
leveraging each other's capabilities collectively. After problems are responded to they go to next
problems or keep on building their capabilities. These networks typically create customized
responses to unstructured problems.
Routine Response Ego-Centric Centralized (RECC): These types of social networks create
routine responses to structured problems. There is typically a centralized hub of high value
which has low value nodes connected. The centralized hubs of different sub-nets have their own
ego-centric networks based on the network of the leader of the hub. However the low value
nodes of a subnet do not connect to low-value nodes of other subnets.
Customized Response Open Request-Based (CROR): These types of social networks do not
have clear boundaries. However, customized response is created through a request based
mechanism.
The question we are exploring here is – which of these social network types are most likely to be
found in which type of organization forms as defined in Section 2. This mapping is of interest for
variety of purposes, and a framework to study this mapping may be useful. We describe the
methodology of developing such a framework using the technique of Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) in Section 4.
4 Methodology
Let us formulate the problem. The question we need to answer is the following,
The ratings of each alternative is multiplied by the weights of the sub-criteria and aggregated to
get local ratings with respect to each criterion. The local ratings are then multiplied by weights of
the criteria and aggregated to get global ratings.
In the initial setting, 5 experts were chosen. These experts were given the background of the
model and information on organization forms and social network types. The experts were asked
to fill in the relative importance of each social network type for every organization form in pair
wise qualitative comparisons as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig 1. Pair wise comparisons from experts
Consistency Ratio of each matrix by each expert is checked and in kept below 0.1 as
recommended by the methodology. The final output using the AHP process from each of the
experts is given in the figures below.
As one can see from the above table, the experts differ from each other and there is no
consensus. The methodology calls for taking the normalized geometric mean as a basis for
consensus of experts. The Table below gives the geometric mean of the inputs from experts
using AHP.
The geometric means are normalized to get the final consensus rating of all the five experts. The
final consensus ratings are given below. The green marks are the top ranking social network
types that the experts feel will be found in specific organization forms. The orange marks are the
second ranked social network type that the experts feel will be found in the specific organization
forms. And finally the blue marks are the third ranked social network type that the experts
believe will be found in the specific organization forms.
4.3 The Results
The results obtained as shown in the Table above are represented as radar plots where each spoke
of the radar indicates one of the five social network types. The mapping of social network types
to each of the organization forms is explained below:
a) Hierarchical organization
forms are likely to have Routine
Response Ego-Centric
Centralized type (47.5%). as
well as Modular Response
Socio-Centric Request Based
type (30.9%) of social
networks.
b) In Ambidextrous organization
form, experts believe the Modular
Response Socio-centric Request-
based social network will be most
prevalent form (43.5%). It is
interesting to note that Customized
Response Socio-Centric Hub-
Swarm comes out to be distant second (21.4%) closely followed by Routine-response
Ego-centric Centralized (16.5%).
While experts have differed with each other on several counts, it is interesting to note that the top
three social networks identified as most likely to be found in a particular form of organization are
consistent. This implies that the experts are differing in the degree to which a social network type
is likely to be found in a particular form of organization but are fairly in agreement on the types
of social networks that are likely to be found. Furthermore, the top 3 social network types for any
particular organizational form cover more than 75% of the relative weights. In combination,
these two results signify that there are clear associations or mapping between organizational
forms and social network types. As we move from hierarchical to emergent forms, there is
unambiguous change in the mappings to social network types.
a) Hierarchical form
This form is characterized by the absence of customized response and open type of social
networks. However, within the other forms there seems to be scope for freedom and
movement (routine and modular response, ego-centric and socio-centric, centralized and
request-based).
b) Ambidextrous form
This form is characterized by socio-centric and ego-centric social networks to some
extent (open type of social networks may make ambidexterity difficult). There is
considerable freedom with respect to all the other types of social networks. All types of
responses are valid, but there is movement away from routine responses and towards
customized responses. Similarly, all architectures are possible but there seems to be
movement away from centralized and towards hub-swarm type of architecture.
d) Emergent form
This form is characterized by customized-response open swarm types of social
networks. Request-based architecture may exist in some cases.
Firstly, this framework can help organizations start thinking about what is their current
form or type of organization and what do they want to be in the future. Simultaneously,
organizations can start observing the types of social networks that are prevalent.
Sometimes it may be difficult for organizations to determine their exact form; there may
be evidence to suggest that more than one form fits the bill. In such cases, the prevalent
types of social networks can offer a clue towards the essential form of the organization.
Once organizations are clear about “which form seems to fit best” and “what types of
social networks are prevalent”, they can use the framework to figure the path of evolution
they would like to take and correspondingly the changes to the organizational social
networks that they need to make. The framework gives clear guidelines to the types of
capabilities that need to be added and movements that need to be made in order to move
towards organizational forms more suitable to growth and innovation, based on the
organizational context.
Often, organizations struggle to extract the best out of their people because organizational
processes are not in sync with the way people work and interact on the ground. This
framework can be used by organizational leadership to redefine their understanding of the
form of their organization to synchronize with the nature of social networks prevalent.
The framework lends itself well to incremental application as well as part-application
(application to parts of the organization without affecting other parts); it does not require
whole-sale changes to the organizational design.
Most importantly, the framework is sufficiently flexible and open to fine-tuning and
modification by incorporating opinions of further more experts in the field. It is an
evolving framework and can be continually (or periodically) updated and used as a
strategic tool for organizational design feeding into organizational growth and
innovation.
While this is a preliminary framework that incorporates the opinions of a fairly small number of
experts (5 in number), the results are sufficiently interesting for us to pursue this research in
greater detail. The next steps are to broaden this research by getting opinions from a larger
community of experts and then (or simultaneously) apply the framework in live organizational
contexts. We also anticipate the need for mechanisms to objectively detect the types of social
networks prevalent in organizations as well as to identify portions of organizations most
receptive to the types of changes articulated in this paper.
References
1. D‟Avini, R. A. I. (1994), Hypercompetition, New York Free Press
2. Sparrow, P. and Cooper, C. L. (2003), The Employment Relationship : Key Challenges for HR, Butterworth-
Hienemann
3. Foster, R. and Kaplan, S. (2003), Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform
the Market--And How to Successfully Transform Them, Doubleday Publishing
4. Burke, W. W. (2002), Organization Change: Theory and Practice, Sage Publications
5. Ashkanasy, N. M. et al. (2000), Handbook of Organization Culture and Climate, Sage Publications
6. Child, J. and McGrath, R. G. 2001, „Organizations unfettered: organizational form in an information-intensive
economy, Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1135-1148
7. Beyerlein, M. M. et al. 2002, Beyond Teams: Building the Collaborative Organization, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer,
ISBN 0787963739
8. O‟Reilly, C. A. and Tushman, M. L. 2004, „The Ambidextrous Organization‟, Harvard Business Review, April
2004 Issue
9. Newbold, D. L. and Azua, M. C. 2007, „A Model for CIO-led innovation, IBM Systems Journal, Vol 46, No 4,
2007
10. Senge, P. M. (1994), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday
11. Nonaka, I (1991), “The Knowledge Creating Company”, Harvard Business Review
12. Liker, J. K. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer,
McGraw-Hill Publications
13. Garvin, D.A. et al. (2008), “Is Yours a Learning Organization”, Harvard Business Review.
14. May, M. E. and Robert, K. (2006), The Elegant Solution: Toyota‟s Formula for Mastering Innovation, Free
Press
15. Brafman, O. and Beckstrom, R. (2008), The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless
Organizations, Penguin Group
16. Gloor, P. A. 2007, „The New Principles of a Swarm Business‟, MIT Sloan Management Review, SPRING 2007
17. Hippel, E. (2005), Democratizing Innovation, MIT Press
18. Gladwell, M. (2002), The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, Little, Brown.
19. Smith, H., „What Innovation Is: How Companies Develop Operating Systems for Innovation‟, A CSC White
Paper, European Office of Technology and Innovation
20. Johnson, T. H. 2007, „The Means are the Ends in the Making: Finding Natural Pathways to Robust, Stable
Business Performance‟, GOAL QPC CQM Conference, Louisville, KY, April 2007
21. Kadushin, C., Introduction to Social Network Theory,
http://home.earthlink.net/~ckadushin/Texts/Basic%20Network%20Concepts.pdf, (accessed 15 December 2008)
22. Dekker A., A Taxonomy of Network Centric Warfare Architectures,
http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/attachments/SETE_Dekker.pdf, (accessed 15 December 2008)
23. Cross, R., Liedtka, J. and Weiss, L. 2005, A Practical Guide to Social Networks, Harvard Business Review,
March 2005.
24. Bhushan N. and Rai K., Strategic Decision Making – Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Decision
Engineering Series, Springer, UK, Jan 2004.
25. T.L. Saaty, Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980
26. Watts D.J., Small Worlds – The Dynamics of Networks between Order and Randomness, Princeton Studies in
Complexity, Princeton University Press, 2006.
27. Granovetter M., The Strength of Weak Ties, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 6., May 1973, pp
1360-1380
28. Jeffrey T. and Milgram S., 1969. An Experimental Study of the Small World Problem, Sociometry, Vol. 32, No.
4, pp. 425-443.