 All organizations have a formal network
of relationships between their employees, which defines their interaction. These
formal networks really aren't networks, they're hierarchies of knowledge and
power. Explicitly the hierarchy is one of power; implicitly this is manipulated
by access to information. Information is passed on or not passed on
selectively. Think about it: do you tell your boss everything? Do you really
think he tells you everything? Legitimate power, based on rank, is expressed in
the formal network. However, it is naive to think that people interact solely
on this level. The informal network, or social network, can alter the dynamics
of power by allowing different routes of access to information.
Organizations develop a multitude of social networks over time. These may run to the thousands
in large companies, generating networks of complexity orders of magnitude
higher than the org chart. The structure and connectivity of these informal
networks are highly significant in determining the flow of information and
influence within organisations.
It
is possible to apply techniques borrowed from social network analysis (SNA) to
software development teams. Once revealed, social networks can be actively or
passively stimulated for the benefit of team formation and cohesion. Agile
principles incorporate social network stimulation on an almost subliminal
level; this is one of the reasons why Agile works. Typically, non-Agile
organisations pay scant attention to team dynamics, and operate at the level of
the individual and their position and role in the defining hierarchy. Conversely, approaching team dynamics at the
levels of the informal networks within a group underpins Agile and Scrum
practices. Informal networks are by
their nature organic and self-organising. It is not possible for management to
explicitly engineer these networks or overtly manipulate them to achieve
objectives, but their formation, evolution and complexity can be stimulated by
both active and passive techniques. This essay will discuss current concepts in
SNA and how these apply to Agile software development, and will then describe
some novel methods for social network stimulation (SNS), such as ‘speed dating.'
Agile practices introduced in this way can then be sustained using intervention
techniques such as the ABIDE model.
To
clarify: in the current context, the term ‘social network' does not refer to Facebook,
MySpace, LinkedIn or similar tools for online networking. The interactions on
these networks are not representative of reality; they are limited by the
structure of the sites. Social networks are the networks that arise through
informal connections between people, regardless of their position in the
hierarchy of the organisation. For instance, in a team, or on a larger scale
within an organisation, a social network could (and often does) consist of the
people who take their kids to school and get to work earlier, the people who go
out and play tennis, or the people who smoke.
In
recent years, SNA has been accepted as a serious research discipline.
Quantifying organic, complex relationships is challenging endeavour, both
mathematically and conceptually. Social networks require a conceptual shift
from the realm of the complicated to that of complexity. Like any complex
system, a social network is more than the sum of its individual parts and their
attributes. The Cognitive Edge network (formerly the Cynefin Centre for
organisational complexity), founded by Dave Snowden, and of which the author is
a member and certified practitioner, is one group taking on the challenge of
practically applying SNA and complexity to everyday team function. There is
distinction here between social complexity and organisational complexity: organisations
represent just one of many social networks that individuals form.
In
every organisation some people are key influencers of decision-making. Known as
the core group, these are the people who most strongly influence decisions
within the organisation. Even though they may not be high in the formal
hierarchy, their opinions are crucial to any action taken by the group - and
the organisation. The core group is the prototypical social network in any
organisation. The core individual's influence can be overt, as in people who
become known as ‘fixers' or ‘movers' in a team, or subtler. To take an example,
the generals do not run the military, it's not run by the officers, the
sergeants run it. That network of sergeants, or the head nurses in a hospital,
is the real core group. They are the ones who get things done, and who drive
organisational change. Identifying core people and core networks is a
fundamental part of social network analysis. Organisational change is rarely
successful when done as management mandate. To succeed, it has to be
implemented at the social network level, but needs to be supported at the core
group level.
Team
members' attributes and behaviour differ according to their position in the
informal network. Individuals with more connections are often exposed to more,
and more diverse information. For instance, everyone hears the progress update
at the meeting, but the people who share a smoke or a ride home swap the
gossip. Highly connected individuals can be more influential, and may be more
influenced by others. The roles adopted by individuals in the network will to a
large extent depend on their personality, unless otherwise influenced by factors
that force them to give up ingrained behaviour patterns.
Performing
SNA in groups of any size can be entertaining and informative. Mapping the
social connections generates curiosity and appeals to basic human needs for
connection and feedback. There are a number of ways in which this can be done. The
network can be presented as a 2D visualisation [fig. 1] derived from the
numbers and strengths of connections between each node. Connection strength and
reciprocity are represented by line thickness and arrowhead direction,
respectively.
Fig. 1 A graphical visualisation of the social interaction
of a software development team
Recently,
researchers like Benjamin Waber, a doctoral student at MIT, have experimented
with live, real-time social network mapping. Waber's ‘reality mining' technique
uses RFID equipped badges to log the location and duration of interactions
between employees. The author has been discussing with colleagues at Nokia the
possibility of using mobile phones for a similar purpose. The core group and
the structure of the informal network become apparent very rapidly. Different
patterns of interaction reveal different types of team, for instance the
‘pulsing star', indicating a very creative team - they spread out, and then
regroup to share information. Waber can improve the density of informal
networks by spotting weak areas and engineering connections between
individuals, in a process dubbed ‘network tightening', which is his intuitive
approach to social network stimulation.
Note
that the types of connections mapped by Waber, in terms of who meets and
communicates with whom, are non-emotive, unlike a questionnaire asking about
levels of trust. The networks mapped are of neutral interaction and information
exchange, and do not ask for subjective ratings of individuals by other
individuals.
Mapping
the social network of an organisation can have drawbacks. For instance, it can
engender resentment among managers when it becomes clear they aren't the hub,
or even a hub, of the network. Snowden and others recall incidents where
management deliberately marginalised strongly connected individuals whose
position in the hierarchy did not, they felt, entitle them to that role. For
such ‘political' reasons, people will frequently rate their relationships with
their seniors more positively than is in fact the case, even in confidential
surveys. Privacy is also a concern - to what extent can or should a firm track
employees' communications and activities? The questions and information
necessary to understand and track real "social" interactions are very sensitive.
In addition, experience has proven that many people can guess the persons
represented by the nodes of a SNA chart with a high degree of accuracy even
when the names are removed.
What
does the social network of an Agile team look like? Should all actors be reciprocally
connected to all others, or would gaps in the network be a natural and
necessary result of team diversity? In a ‘complete' network all available
information would flow freely between nodes and all team members would have
equal influence. Even in dedicated Agile groups, this state of team dynamics is
rarely observed; there will always be stronger and weaker connections. For
instance, a programming pair will tend to share more information than each
would with management, on a daily basis. There will be someone who contributes
less in meetings, someone who takes on the core role and gets things done for
others. Why does this happen, and how will it affect team performance? More
importantly, how can we change this for the better? We'll look at that in next
month's article.
References
Benjamin Waber's blog:
http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/netgov/2008/01/social_network_feedback_in_rea.html
Cognitive Edge:
http://www.cognitive-edge.com
Art
Kleiner, Who really matters - the Core
Group theory of power, privilege and success, London, 2003
Richard Corriere, Life Zones - How to win in the game of life, New York 1986
Comments () |
 |
|
|
|
Tags:
Click to add your tags...,
|
Articles 
