Informal Networks: Behind the Chart
https://hbr.org/1993/07/informal-networks-the-company-behind-the-chart
Harvard Business Review published the study “Informal Networks: Behind the Chart” by David Krackhardt and Jeffrey Hanson; it primarily focuses on how “informal networks,” or the relationships created between coworkers in organizations to accomplish work faster, socialize, and for seeking advice is often subjective, such that one individual in the network may have their own perception of how their company’s network is laid out, compared to the actual network layout. The issue emerges when managers/CEOs might not have a thorough understanding of how their organization’s network is structured, so when they attempt to restructure their team or company, they may often overlook these fundamental, hidden structures and cause severe issues within management; a network composed of negative ties between certain coworkers can yield unproductivity as their communication may be stifled due to personal issues. On the contrary, by understanding these informal networks by mapping out social links, they can reorganize their structures to best fit the informal networks and help facilitate social and productive growth. For example, the creation of a network that matches these informal networks would result in a less significant need for formal supervision from managers, and work could be completed faster.
Furthermore, while a formal structure of a company may be the actual composition of the company; such as low level workers collaborating on a team to report to a supervisor, a few supervisors reporting to a manager, etc., the informal network behind the company is far more relevant as positive ties between certain teams within the company may create collaboration amongst the chain of command, or facilitate collaboration between different teams. For example, on my project team, I am on one subteam, so the formal structure may result in my discussion with one team lead and the 4 other people on my subteam, but my best friend is on another subteam, which allows the both of us to offer each other advise, as well as consider the other subteams needs in order to do our best work. This is because the informal network facilitates the collective actions and reactions to managerial decisions; this takes place in the form of the formal network reacting to problems/tasks that are expected of them, but the informal network reacting to problems that aren’t initially anticipated.
This can be further considered through the lens of the purpose of the informal network, and whether or not the informal network was created through seeking advice, accomplishing a task, or a general positive social connection. These are outlined in the article as Task Related Networks, which are further broken down into “Communication Networks;” or whom you talk to most frequently, “Advice Seeking Networks;” whose ties mirror whom you reach out to very often for professionally related advice, “Information Networks;” or whom you would reach out to in regards to receiving information about the going-ons in the company, “Problem Solving Networks,” and “Buy-in Networks,” which denotes who supports who’s initiatives within a company. This makes fundamental sense to me that all of these networks would be different within a formal company or organization, but as I reflect on this, I also realize that I go to different people in my life for each of these facets; I have many people that I talk to about the current events on campus because I know that they hold great social relevance on campus (for all intensive purposes, they are a broker), but I wouldn’t expect them to help me solve a professional problem, nor would I expect them to really support my goals or initiative. It doesn’t mean that we have a negative tie, it simply means that I know their strengths for all intensive purposes.
Non-task related networks are broken up into “friendship networks,” “social support networks” (ties that indicate who reaches out to who for socioemotional support), and “Trust Networks.” This also makes sense to me as there are people whom I am close with that I would not necessarily trust, and there are many people that I have confided in that I wouldn’t even consider a friend. The study depicts the difference between how a CEO views their company’s trust network, versus how a manager views the trust network; this shows that, to some extent, informal networks can and are created within groups of people that differ from one another for different purposes, and people’s perceptions of networks can change, and are often times not accurate to the actual network.
