Networks, not hierarchies: How social media is transforming office politics and changing what we value in others

By Rachel Happe

Social software matters. It matters because it allows for quality to surface, modesty to win, and effort to be rewarded – all things that hierarchical processes in organisations often subvert. Traditionally in such organisations, position in the hierarchy – rather than effort or work quality – determines influence and power. This is not to say that all hierarchical organisations do a bad job with rewarding and recognising people for the quality of their information and effort, but hierarchy does make it really easy for – and often requires – managers to spend their time recycling information rather than developing it. Hierarchies also make it likely that good information and its original source will get squandered, lost, and hidden. People inclined to take advantage of the structure for their own advancement can do so at the expense of individual contributors and the productivity of the organisation as a whole. It’s an ugly thing but it happens all the time to the frustration of everyone else involved.

Social software encourages the formation of networks, not hierarchies. With networks, the more effort an individual puts in, the more the individual is rewarded if s/he is adding value. This subverts hierarchical filtering of information and gives more influence to the contributors adding the most value. In healthy, well-functioning organisations, this will be seen as a great thing because it speeds the flow of information, discovery, and expert identification – and increases the productivity of the organisation as a whole. This also allows for better use of resources: as individuals display passion and expertise for certain topics, they will increasingly be assigned to projects that need that expertise – in effect letting individuals determine more of the work that they take on, instead of being assigned.

The transparency and recognition that come as part of social technologies also allow managers to have a better understanding of who their most valuable contributors are, rather than having to rely in part on bluster. With information silos where it is hard to judge the effort and value of information being generated by people, managers often have to rely on their own subjective impressions and those can be swayed greatly by individuals’ abilities to self-promote and be squeaky wheels. I’ve been on both sides of that equation: I’ve benefited as someone who puts things out there and I’ve managed people who are personally assertive. Sometimes it is backed up with output and sometimes not – but it can be hard to distinguish and even harder to quantify. Social software does still reward the ‘social’ but it is also easy to see if the chatter is backed up with good content or if it is just chatter.

Social software also rewards more than one type of contributor. Certainly content creators get recognised but so too do those that filter good content and contribute liquidity to the network – people who actively recognize and promote others. That type of persona is often the one least recognised and explicitly valued by information hierarchies, although anyone ‘in the know’ typically knows who those people are and uses them extensively to find out what’s going on within an organisation. They are often people lowest in the hierarchy and often fairly quiet themselves but they listen, observe, and share with anyone who is interested.

So why does all this matter so much to me? I think the transparency forces honest assessment – for both individuals and organisations – that ultimately improves them. I think it allows hard work and quality to be rewarded faster. I think it makes people happier because their skills and interests become better aligned with the work they do. I think it allows for people who may not have political skills but are excellent contributors to be more justly rewarded. I think it vastly increases the productivity of organisations. I believe information and relationships are society’s most important assets – and I think social software has the ability to make us more humane again.

A version of this piece was originally published on the US website www.technicallywomen.com.

Related posts:

1. Where exactly should social media fall in the organizational structure?
2. Innovative, entrepreneurial and with strong social support networks: the real Britain revealed
3. Revealed: The BNP’s social media strategy
4. Europe Day: time to put social justice back at the heart of European politics
5. A different approach for the Post Office