Networked citizens: second post

Continuing my review of Networked Citizens (NC) by Peter Bradwell and Richard Reeves.

Social actors becoming defined by their networks

One of the most interesting things about the evolving use of social networking sites is that people are recognising that the relevancy and value of relationships to them are far more important than adding more and more connections. I’m finding the same thing too – I have culled some of people I follow on Twitter. Indeed, taking care about your online relationships is likely to become more important over time as networking influences your identity and your reputation. This recent posting by Chris Brogan goes into some useful strategies to make more of your social networks online.

One of the observations in NC is that our online presence is defined as much by others as ourselves. I think that is true. Content posted by my online friends or connections on Facebook, FriendFeed or Twine is by any measure an indicator of my online presence – in terms of the people that I connect with and the interests we may share – as well as the content that I’m directly responsible for. Anyone looking at my social networking will make judgements about me based not only on who I connect to but what content the connection produces as well.

So the social actor could be expected to be defined in part by their online networks. Understanding social action requires less of an emphasis on the individual (and individualism) and more of an emphasis on networks. As the authors of NC say “the role of networked capital is increasing, and the influence of personal reputation, history and network presence will be vital”.

Blurring boundaries between work and social interaction

NC found that organisations are aware of the way that employees experience the freedoms of network working.  Employee social networks are becoming “…bound up with the success of their careers, present and future, inside organisations and outside” (page 41).  In other words, people are linking with peers over social networks to share knowledge, contribute to group discussion, distribute their work and comment on others, publicise their credentials and gain new forms of visibility and reputation.

Actually, according to the Digital Youth Project research findings, youth in the United States are often more motivated to learn from their peers than from adults. They like the freedom and autonomy to explore in social networking online, which stands in contrast to rigidities of classroom learning that is set by predefined goals. I would say these ways of learning and inter-working with peers online are starting to operate within the work place too. The implications for organisations are significant: it’s a case of not what the organisation can to to improve organisational learning, it’s more a case of what social networks can do for the organisation.

NC found that organisations that develop their own social networking platforms have had variable success with their implementation and impact. Inhouse networks “…provide too formal a script for people’s interactions, writing out the connections between internal and external networking, between work and social life” (page 44). In other words, those organisations simply do not get it. Those organisations have not figured out that they can no longer be in control of work-related networking that utilises employee social networks online. NC found that the most innovative responses by organisations to social networking online is to go with the grain of networks. That is very useful advice indeed.

However, it is not just a case of going with the flow in terms of networking platforms, the nature of the relationship between employee and employer must also adapt to embrace social interaction online. It’s about embracing peer-relationships and peer production. Organisations need to look beyond financial remuneration to connect with employees and their peers. Organisations need to work with the freedoms that come from self-directed exploration and self-expression within peer-to-peer relationships. Or, as Charlene Li might say, it’s about having conversations with employees, not issuing commands that come out of centralised management processes.

Social capital

Another important distinction to make between traditional networking within and between organisations, and social networking online, is that there is no ownership online, either in terms of the employer or individual. Sure, an individual increases their social capital value from networking online, but they do not own the data or the connections contributed by others. Questions about who owns your data are raging right now, and I’m not going to get into that right now. Suffice to say that, just as organisations must free-up some control over their relationships with employees, organisations cannot claim an intellectual property right on the value arising from the blurred social/work networks.

Value Chain 2.0

I’ve just read Value Chain 2.0 by Xavier Comtesse and Jeffrey Huang 0f ThinkStudio. The authors hypothesis was that when consumers shift from being passive to active, they become integral parts of the value creation process – Value 2.0. I agree.

This analysis contributes to the expanding literature on the economic and social consequences arising from the Participative Web. My last two postings (in reference to changes in the work place and social capital value accruing from social networking) are also subsets of the Participative Web.

Participation is reshaping the media too – instead of passively sitting back to take whatever broadcasters and publishers distribute, consumers are now producers and distributors – prosumers as they say.

Instead of passively taking in media accounts of political developments, citizens are now journalists and they communicate directly online with senior politicians. So it goes on.

The authors of Value Chain 2.0 observed that a company’s support environment (especially Internet-based industries):

• does not belong to the company itself anymore, but to the “whole ecosystem in which the company is immersed” (page 5). Being an ecosystem, there are multiple stakeholders
• the internal processes of a company must connect with the non-linear, complex and networked realities of the participative economy
• the value chain 2.0 is only valid for companies that have opened up their value chains to integrate their customers.

The authors refer to the ‘infrastructures’ of a company connecting directly with the infrastructures of the other stakeholders. On the face of it, that sounds reasonable but I am left scratching my head some what. There is an assumed complementary relationship between value chain 1.0 and 2.0. But it seems to me that dynamic is really the tricky bit. How much would value chain 1.0 change in the course of connecting with value chain 2.0? Will a new and as yet unknown value chain emerge? Possibly.

More on network capital

OK, I’m really pleased with the responses I’ve had to my last posting. I’m certainly keen on looking into social network value…and have started doing so.

Some of the other networking I’ve done over the last couple of months has been triggered or fostered through this blog as well. I’ve had some really useful exchanges with ‘friends’ and followers on other social networking sites recently too, and my networks in Australia, China, North America and the UK in particular have continued to expand. With one exception, I’ve got to say I’m really pleased with the way my social networking activity has gone of late. Kind of like on the road to achieving a vision. That’s got to be good!

I now have several expressions of interest to collaborate that I am keen to follow-up with, and some research referrals to pursue. I’ve read a couple of really interesting papers that I’ve found to be instructive and stimulating (on network citizens and social capital value) and I’ll be sharing my views on these soon. So the richer experience for me of late has been in establishing deeper relationships and less from the weaker links in the form of feeds and tweets etc. Of course, the weak links remain of value – like following and being followed by the Australian Prime Minister (or at least his office) and Leader of the Opposition on Twitter. Actually, Twitter remains an incredibly useful way to find out what others reactions are to events and developments. So, there has been much happening for me, and all of this during a time when I’ve had a couple of breaks from being online.

The exception is that I’ve not had the space or interest to be that active in some of the social networking and social media sites where I have a presence. I guess it is all part of the learning process for me right now…and I am sure new tools to help find, interpret and aggregate social networks and feeds are on the horizon.

I am gaining in social network value…some of which will be useful at work. Sure, I can add value at work while enhancing my own sense of value. That’s cool. But it does beg a question from a general perspective (not personal): how much value is accrued to the firm/organisation from the networking activities of individuals? Just a share of it in fact i would say, with the proportion of value to the firm or individual respectively dependent on context. That’s almost suggestive of some kind of sliding scale or continuum of value.

Enough pondering for now. It’s time to eat!