Fog & Revelation: Emergence of Effective Informal Networks
Recently I was drawn to a post by Mike Burrows on LinkedIn. The post included a conversation about metaphors of an organisation. I posted a few comments and both Mike’s and Kevin Rutherford’s responses got me thinking.
This post is a ramble through the thoughts that this triggered. On the way,we encounter Alicia Juarrero, Dave Snowden, Gregory & Nora Bateson and Gilles Deleuze… no surprises there!
The post started with Mike proposing:
The organisation as web: the network of “who knows who knows what” — the “who” being people and groups thereof
Informal network effectiveness is enabled through interactions within the abductive gaps. These gaps are the place in which knowledge is actualised amidst the multiple contexts present in the interaction. This statement betrays my influences! (Gregory and Nora Bateson, and Gilles Deleuze)
The informal network forms due to constraint regimes enabling effective interactions. These constraint regimes emerge from the interactions. They also act on the effectiveness of interactions. This effectiveness has history — a temporal dimension. The effectiveness is always contextual and temporal. The effectiveness and hence the informal network is always dynamic.
Mike proposed a greater identity and self preservation capability is also present. These are also both aspects of the complex adaptive system perspective on assemblages. They highlight a potential source of imbalance.
Kevin mentioning desire lines as an analogy — emergence. This and the stabilising dynamic reminded me of the stochastic processes that Bateson talks about. There is something of the random mutation in the process of emergence and something of the selection in the stabilisation. The possibility of emergence and change being shaped by the balance between these.
Alicia Juarrero talks about context dependent constraints creating interdependence. They move individual elements away from independence. They are akin to Dave Snowden’s connecting constrains and enable emergence. Context independent constraints start to become established, making some outcomes more likely than others. These are much like Snowden’s containing constraints. The more these constraint regimes become entrenched, the less responsive to change these systems become. This sounds similar to the mutation selection dynamic to me.
In informal networks, the attractors or assemblages that form risk becoming more entrenched. Their identities become stronger. Schismogenesis can occur between groups,. We often see the anthropological effect of one group’s identity being a response to the another’s values.
I will return now to the mutation-selection metaphor. Selection and identity may become so entrenched such that mutation effects are damped by the constraint regime. Our islands become harder to traverse. The gaps in which abduction can happen become inaccessible.
In conclusion, an effective informal network can be seen as one in which the constraint regime is such that the abductive gaps are still accessible and effective. There needs to be enough identity and difference to create gaps — the difference that makes a difference — but not not so much as to stray into entrenchment and schismogenesis, preventing effective interaction.
