As I am about to finish my book, I would like to point out a specific aspect of it, „The Strength of Weak Ties“ from Granovetter…
On the basis of a non-representative social networks-study (N=296) of Milgram in 1967 (“The small world problem”, see [Milg67, pp. 61 et seq.]), Milgram and Travers claimed that any two persons are linked to one another through a chain with “somewhat greater than five” (see [TrMi69, pp. 441 et seq.]). The results of this study, often cited and known as “6 degrees of separation”, have been confirmed several times. For example, in 2007 it was figured out in another study, that the average path length in messenger networks is 6.6 (see [LeHo07, p. 23]).
But how can we use our ties in volatile environment with increasingly less structured “problem solving processes” in an effective way? Granovetter points out that in addition to close ties, loose connections are of relevance. Granovetter has analyzed this in “The Strength of Weak Ties (SWT)” in 1973 (see [Gran73, pp. 1360 et seq.]). Loose connections are important: they serve as “good bridges” (see above) between established networks to establish contact. Such “good bridges” are of particular value for the management of internal or cross-company processes in case specific expertise or the inclusion of different actors is required to solve problems. In other words, “network-short cuts” are needed to detect and aggregate the required process knowledge.
In this context, we come to Enterprise 2.0 and in particular to the importance of social networks in enterprises. Through the usage of loose ties, problem-relevant expertise can be more easily and quickly detected and relevant knowledge is more transparent. As a result, problem solving can be facilitated and knowledge-intensive, dynamic processes can be speeded up. Thus, the effective usage of loose ties and “good bridges” respectively can also be key to set a company apart from its competitors.
Andrew McAfee, the “father” of the term “Enterprise 2.0”, also often refers to Granovetter, for example in his book “Enterprise 2.0 – New collaborative tools for your organization’s toughest challenges”.
“A tidy summary of SWT’s conclusion is that strong ties are unlikely to bridges between networks, while weak ties are good bridges. Bridges help solve problems, gather information, and import unfamiliar ideas. They enable work to be accomplished more quickly and more effectively. The ideal network for a knowledge worker probably consists of a core of strong ties and a large periphery of weak ones.” [McAf09, pp. 83 et seq.]
For additional information, see the forthcoming book “Potenziale und Herausforderungen des Geschäftsprozessmanagements im Enterprise 2.0 unter Berücksichtigung der Dynamik unternehmerischer Systeme” (see [Domb11]) and the research sources in the reference list – or just come up to me.
Reference list:
- [Domb11] Dombrowski, Boris – Forthcoming Book: “Potenziale und Herausforderungen des Geschäftsprozessmanagements im Enterprise 2.0 unter der Berücksichtigung der Dynamik unternehmerischer Systeme.”
Berlin: Logos Verlag, 2011 - [Gran73] Granovetter, Mark: „The strength of Weak Ties.” In: American Journal of Sociology, Volume 78, Issue 6.
Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 1360-1380 - [LeHo07] Leskovec, Jure; Horvitz, Eric: „Planetary-Scale Views on an Instant-Messaging Network.” – Microsoft Research Technical Report, MSR-TR-2006-186, URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0939, last verified on February 28, 2011.
Redmond WA: Microsoft Corp., 2007 - [McAf09] McAfee, Andrew P.: „Enterprise 2.0 – New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization’s Toughest Challenges.“
Boston MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2009 - [Milg67] Milgram, Stanley: „The small world problem.” In: Psychology Today 1 (May) / 1967.
New York, NY: Psychology Today, 1967, pp. 61-67 - [TrMi69] Travers, Jeffrey; Milgram, Stanley: „An experimental study of the small world problem.” In: Sociometry, Issue 32(4), URL: www.stanford.edu/class/cs224w/readings/travers69smallworld.pdf, last verified on March 1, 2011.
Washington DC: American Sociological Association, 1969, pp. 425-443