The map is not the territory

It has just dawned on me that there are two reasons that I get a nervous tick every time anyone mentions social network analysis.

Image © www.eriding.net

The first is because the activity is invariably couched in terms of one group - managers, the business - mapping the relationships of everyone else - the people prepared to open up and use the social tools in the first place.

The second is because they seek to make explicit something that is much better left implicit. We can all work out what the network is and where the good guys are from the using the tools and inhabiting the environments they create without having to have it drawn out for us.

If I felt that someone else was mapping my conversions and the relationships they represented - and wasn't prepared to have the same done to them, I would soon stop talking.

Comments

[Johnnie Moore]

Thanks Euan, I thought I might be the only one. Though for me it's more a sinking in my stomach than a tick. The joy of social networks is their freedom from "organogram" thinking, and something about SNA feels like an effort to say, oh this is OK, you can manage it just like your old hierarchy.

[Jon Husband]

If I felt that someone else was mapping my conversions and the relationships they represented - and wasn't prepared to have the same done to them

.. or were not completely transparent about the purpose of the mapping (including attempts to enhance productivity and top-down control). People will, I think, automatically assume these are key purposes, why wouldn't they ?

Amen ! to to the whole post.

[Steve Dale]

Euan, absolutely agree with your sentiments. I detect a form of management paranoia; they don't really understand what social networking is all about, they don't want to dip their toes into what they consider to be muddy water, yet at the same they want to understand it in the only way that makes sense to them - numbers and statistics.

What worries me are the conclusions they may draw from this imprecise and flawed method of evaluation!

[Graham Durant-Law]

Hullo Euan.

I don’t agree, primarily because you over-generalise.

A network analysis need not be on one group. It could for example map artefacts, projects, intra and inter project communications, trust networks, and intra and inter organisational interactions. My own research - http://www.durantlaw.info/Doctorate - seeks to do exactly this. In other words it is recognising that at one time we can belong to many networks.

Your second reason needs expansion. I have blogged on deconstructing complexity using network analysis techniques – see http://www.durantlaw.info/Deconstructing+Complexity . In this case it was about understanding a portfolio of projects. Network analysis techniques were very useful in making the implicit, and in this case the invisible, projects explicit.

Now you might offer the criticism that I am not doing social network analysis. But remember projects are run by people who reside in organisations. Making the invisible or obscured explicit can, and in my example does, aid management and the knowledge workers. The techniques I am using come from social network analysis and in some circles might be called organisational network analysis ala Rob Cross.

If this doesn’t convince you have a look at this website http://netmap.wordpress.com/case-studies/ which highlights the work of Eva Schiffer in Ghana.

Social network analysis need not be evil, and is not the same as social computing.

Regards

Graham

[Jon Husband]

Context, context, context ...

[Graham Durant-Law]

Exactly Jon, and thats the problem with the original post - no context together with gross generalisations.

Regards, Graham

[Euan Semple]

Damn - there's that tick again .....

[Graham Durant-Law]

Dear Euan

First I will acknowledge this is your blog and you can respond however you like. I will also say I was disappointed with your response, particularly as until now I thought you to be a ‘thought leader’. Your response doesn’t counter any argument or example I put forward; rather it comes across as a flippant and somewhat superior remark. (As an Australian I could also put one or two other interpretations on your response, which are less than complimentary but which I am sure were not your intent.) So perhaps you might like to tell me and everyone else why “you feel the tick returning”?

Regards, Graham

[Euan Semple]

Your comment apeared to confirm my fears with phrases such as "Network analysis techniques were very useful in making the implicit, and in this case the invisible, projects explicit." and "Making the invisible or obscured explicit can, and in my example does, aid management and the knowledge workers." being of particular concern.

I had deliberately used the vehicle of "a nervous tick" to convey the personal nature of my comment and to counter the impression that I was saying that all SNA was rubbish or of ill intent. Maybe I should not try to be so subtle.

I responded by continuing in what I hoped was a light hearted tone but your comment seemed to be full of the very language and unctuousness that was what I was concerned about in the first place and indeed I too found your response to my post "somewhat superior".

Lastly being flippant is not, IMHO, incompatible with being a thought leader - whatever that is!

[Graham Durant-Law]

Well I guess the limitations of the medium we are using are being exposed. It was certainly not my intent to "be superior" but rather provide several real world examples. I also did not understand the light heartedness.

I stand by my original comments and the network analysis used to elicit them. Indeed on my blog I highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the approach, and the mistakes that can be made. Take a look and critique it if you will. Better still take a look at Eva Schiffer's work where she uses social network analysis with illiterate parties to achieve understanding for poverty and hunger amelioration. If you don't like my work I think you will find it hard to fault hers!

My objection to your blog remains - I find it to be a generalisation with no context to frame the comments.

Regards, Graham

[Euan Semple]

I am hopeful that your objection is to this blog post rather than to my blog as a whole Graham but thankfully, terminology apart, this medium allows each of us to have our own style.

I have often been complimented on my ability to encapsulate complex subjects in an accessible way but I guess one man's enviable skill is another man's indulgence in sweeping generalisations!

As I have already mentioned this post was framed as my personal reaction to the subject and my reasons for that reaction. They were based on my experience, reading on the subject and my reaction to the groups of people to whom SNA seems to appeal. I feel confident that most of my readers will be able to appreciate that context.

[Graham Durant-Law]

Euan I did not mean the blog as a whole, but rather this post. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, as I am one of those "people to whom SNA seems to appeal".

Regards Graham

[Euan Semple]

I am not convinced we are disagreeing and I have added yourself and Eva to my RSS feeds!

:-)

[Mary Anne Davis]

You and Graham, now friends? Ah, this place, I suspect there is no analysis possible in this particular interaction, but fun watching. Hope the tick died down! ;)

[Jon Husband]

The exchange that has ensued is for me an useful unfolding of the map to look at the territory ;-) My "context, context, context" was in support of Euan's knowledge in the context of SNA's use inside an organization. Graham's points add nuance through clear examples where the use of SNA is distilled to (probably to date) less common purpose.

I respect the deeper knowledge demonstrated by both of you. SNA in service of manipulation to sustain crude power and to coerce is lamentable when as Euan points out there is much that goes on in social networks that functions better / more effectively when left unsurveilled.

[Bruce Stewart]

So what do you think of people like Scott McNealy (with his ) or David Brin in The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom, both of whom would seem to fall into a crowd that says "go ahead, managers, map away - we'll be doing the same"?

I think we have less to fear about all this mapping than lets on. As many in political life - the people who handle polling, the 'ground war' of signs and door-knocking and literature drops, candidate messaging, etc. - are discovering, we lie a lot - and not that that's new, but we're more effective at it because there is so much information out there right now. (An ex-friend of mine is deeply involved in (Canadian) Liberal Party campaigns and once told me how easily door-knockers can discern your (a) likelihood of voting and (b) for whom simply by the way you decline to answer the question. With that information in hand, I hope I'm better prepared to keep my intentions the secret they should be!)

Managers have always looked for tools to channel, control, etc. Employees and contributors have always looked for ways to band together in the face of that. Bring on the War of the Maps! - for, as always, where the maps are shared there is a greater likelihood of the map corresponding in a more meaningful way to the territory.

[Graham Durant-Law]

Euan we agree on the ethical questions implicit in your post, but I am less sure about other areas. I am pleased you have a RSS feed to my site.

Jon I worry at the negative view of "management" you seem to have, but perhaps I am misinterpreting you? Not everything management does is for sinister purposes.

Bruce I agree your comment that when "the maps are shared there is a greater likelihood of the map corresponding in a more meaningful way to the territory." I would qualify this by saying provided it is done within an ethical framework. I've just blogged on this subject at http://www.durantlaw.info/Network+Analysis+Ethics .

Regards Graham

[Jon Husband]

Worry on, then, Graham.

I often make generalizations about "management", because, well, I think there are some there to be made.

I'm hopefully not that clueless to recognize that it as a field is not "sinister". Slow to adapt to changing conditions, maybe.

Interesting choice of words

[Jon Husband]

SNA in service of manipulation to sustain crude power and to coerce is lamentable

Graham, if you are referencing that portion of my comment, I don't believe I am saying that is all that "management" may use SNA to accomplish ... though I do not doubt that some or maybe even many "managements" may, consciously or not, use SNA in that regard.

[Graham Durant-Law]

Jon I wasn't for one minute suggesting you were clueless, and I’m not worrying too hard. :)

However I do find this phrase suggests management has some sort of sinister intent - “SNA in service of manipulation to sustain crude power and to coerce is lamentable”.

I was also puzzled by this phrase - “ … attempts to enhance productivity and top-down control. People will, I think, automatically assume these are key purposes, why wouldn't they?”

My initial response was why would they? Further, and to generalise, it seems to me management is about improving productivity or at least trying to maintain a level of productivity. What’s wrong with trying to improve or maintain a level of productivity?

Regards Graham

[Graham Durant-Law]

Hi Jon. I should hit refresh before posting! I note you have already responded to the first part of my last post, and I hope I have demonstrated how I arrived at the word 'sinister'.

I do think we are hedging around the issue of ethics in SNA, and how SNA may or may not be used ethically. I do agree this is a problem, but I also think SNA can be done within an ethical framework. Professor Steve Borgatti has addressed SNA ethical issues in detail in his paper “Toward ethical guidelines for network research in organizations ” - see http://www.analytictech.com/borgatti/papers/ethics2005.pdf . It's well worth a read.

Regards Graham

[Jon Husband]

What’s wrong with trying to improve or maintain a level of productivity?

Nothing.

But "sinister is as sinister does", and i think it's an open secret that there some pretty clueless "managements" out there. The cluelessness may not be fully conscious, as I think it seems clear that "we" are in the early days of some pretty massive changes to the philosophy and practices of what is called "management".

Your point about ethics is well taken, and yes, I think that is a key point. But there is also the ham-handedness and ham-headedness that derives from an outmoded view of the worth, use of and ways to engage and sustain the engagement of peoples' motivations and energies at work.

You don't have to take it from me ... a reasonably well-respected chap who is a leading light at the London Business School and advisor to many managements around the world, Gary Hamel, has some pretty direct words about traditional management and where he thinks management needs to be going. He outlines this in a new book titled The Future of Management, which is a pretty good read, imo.

[Graham Durant-Law]

Hi Jon. I would agree there are some clueless managements out there, but there are also many high performers. I also agree we are beginning to witness some substantial changes to the practice of management. I don't think we are witnessing a paradigm shift yet.

I haven't read the "Future of Management", but will do so on your recommendation. Let me also recommend a vey good book called "Management Redeemed" by Frederick Hilmer and Lex Donaldson. Both authors are professors at the management school at the University of New South Wales.

Regards Graham