The unintended consequences in the use of social metrics

I have been working on understanding how to measure social activity for several years.  I think it is extremely valuable to get objective data on how we are using our social tools to get insights into the value of 'social' and also the challenges.  We can now gather a huge amount of data and the analytics capability is really exciting.  But I am also concerned with how we use these measurements.  Many companies turn the metrics into a tool to drive behavior rather than an indicator on how we are doing.  This can result in driving dysfunctional behavior since people are focused on increasing a number rather than contributing because they have something worthwhile to share.  

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."  Goodhart's Law (1975).  Professor Emeritus of Economics at London School of Economics.  (source: Wikipedia)

"The more any quantitative social indicator (or even some qualitative indicator) is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor."  Campbell's Law (1976).  a social psychologist  and the author of many works on research methodology.  (italics added) (source: Wikipedia)

Network Theories of Power – What are the assumptions about power in Social Business ?

I recently finished watching a 60 minute recording of a lecture by Manuel Castells (from USC) on Network Theories of Power which is part of a series of lectures on network theory put on by the Annenberg School at USC (March 2010).  This was a fascinating presentation if you have the time to review it (see below).  I think it has some concepts in it that could inform our ongoing discussions about ‘Social Business’ and power in organizations including how do hierarchical networks relate to more egalitarian networks. 

From a related 2011 article that he wrote:  A Network Theory of Power

Power in the networked society is exercised through networks.

1. Networking Power: the power of the actors and organizations included in the networks …over human collectives and individuals who are not included in these global networks.
2. Network Power: the power resulting from the imposition of the rules of inclusion
3. Networked Power: the power of social actors over other social actors in the network. Some people are more influential than others.
4. Network-making Power: the power to ‘program’ specific networks according to the interests and values of the programmers, and the power to switch different networks following the strategic alliances between the dominant actors of various networks.

While he is focused on power and networks in society, I think that much of his theories and ideas can be applied to organizations as well.  Some of his underlying conclusions; “power relationships are key fundamental relationships in a networked society” and “There is always power and counter-power in society”.  He also discusses the key roles that people hold in these networks including the gatekeepers that decide on the rules that are imposed on people who want to join/participate in a network and the key people who can ‘switch’ the purpose and goals of a network based on a few dominant players.  Even though this recording is a couple of years old, it seems especially pertinent with the recent happenings in the world. 

One of the reasons I think this is important for us is the implications for organizations as we move in the direction of relying on the non-hierarchical networks for the creation of value.  Influence is shifting from the top-down power that has governed organizations towards other forms of influence.  In some of our consultant training we refer to the types or sources of influence as:

• Position Influence – using people’s tendency to respond to individuals in higher positions
• Coercive Influence – the capability to punish, reprimand or discipline others
• Reward Influence – the ability to dispense reward, something positive or desirable
• Information influence – possessing information or knowledge not available to others
• Expert influence – based on the skill or expertise which others may hold in high regard
• Personal influence – individual personality, charisma and the relationships you create

The first few above are quite often dependent on the level of authority in a hierarchy.  The last few are available to anyone and very difficult to control from above.

What Manuel is saying is that there will always be questions of power, so how do we see this power shift in organizations happening over the next couple of years and what are the steps that can make this transition as smooth as possible.  I think that this is one of the fundamental questions we face.  There are people who have been successful in the old paradigm who will see this as very threatening.  As employees begin to exercise their influence in the networks, there will be back-lashes. 

How do we include this as part of our organizational change strategy and approaches?  How will this affect our leadership development?  Any large company needs some form of hierarchy (IMHO) so how do we incorporate a new ‘balance of powers’ into our ideas of governance?  I think we need to be thoughtful about this if we want to minimize the amount of turmoil in organizations.  

(citation for the article above:  Castells, M. 2011 Apr 8. Network Theory| A Network Theory of Power. International Journal of Communication [Online] 5:0. Available: http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1136/553 )

Visual Thinking and Literacy

I had an opportunity to attend a weekend workshop a couple of weeks ago on Visual Thinking & Literacy that was hosted by my local school district.  It was the first time that I participated in a workshop that had a person scribing the topics as they were happening on a large chart on the wall (see attached image).  This session was of particular interest to me since I am visually oriented and make sense of things by trying to create a chart or image.  I was also really pleased to have my daughter attend with me.  She is a newly-minted elementary school teacher and is working with 5th-6th graders in a local school. 

There were a number of key-note sessions on topics of general interest and then the tough choices of selecting which break-out sessions to go to.  One that I attended was by Cliff Atkinson who wrote the book called Beyond Bullet Points on the use of tools like Powerpoint.  He was talking about telling a story and how to use the tools in really powerful ways. 

One of the most entertaining speakers was Karl Gude who spoke on Information Design & Storytelling.  Karl was the information design director for Newsweek for 10 years and now teaches at Michigan State University (where my daughter just graduated from).  Unfortunately, many of the examples he used in the session as things NOT to do looked exactly like charts that I make.  Oh boy, some bad habits to break.  One of his statements that really hit home was, “people will perceive everything you do as information” so if you use certain colors and squares instead of circles, the audience interprets that as information.

On a more practical side, I attended one breakout session presented by a couple of folks from the company that developed Camtasia and Snagit on how to avoid things that distract viewers when creating screencasts that had specific tips and techniques.  Overall it was a very refreshing / fun day.  It gave me some ideas for improving my own presentations but also a peak into how school teachers are trying to incorporate these new tools into their toolbox. 

Social norms vs. market norms

Continuing the theme from my last post, I was recently reading the book Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely (Duke University) and was struck by his use of the metaphor of living in two worlds simultaneously, “…one where social norms prevail, and the other where market norms make the rules.” (pg. 68)

Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions

He starts with the story of enjoying a Thanksgiving dinner at the in-laws and to show your appreciation you offer to pay your mother-in-law for the dinner.  In a situation that calls for social norms, introducing market norms is offensive and can damage relationships.  Through several social experiments, he shows that it is difficult for these two norms to co-exist in a situation and generally market norms will overpower the social norms. 

The implications to online communities was blogged about several months ago by Jeffrey Henning at vovici (Social Norms and Market Norms in Online Communities).  Jeffrey makes the case that it is important to understand the nature of the community from the beginning and to be consistent on whether it will be driven by social norms or market norms.

The same can be said for organizations that are trying to take advantage of the social aspects of work.  When does going above and beyond the job requirements to help out a colleague (because of the social relationships) become activities that should be compensated by the company?  Returning to Ariely, the title of the chapter is “the Cost of Social Norms” and he discusses the implications of companies that try to develop a social relationship with customers or employees.  If, or when, the organization has to shift to a market norm, there is a feeling of betrayal and the relationship is worse off than if it had been governed by market norms all along.

A Metaphoric Struggle

Recently I was pulling together some content around governance for social software and it reminded me of a quote from a book that struck me about 10 years ago. 

“Finding the right metaphor or model is even more critical than developing a better set of policies.  ...A metaphoric struggle is currently in progress over how we should imagine our organizational structures for communication and decision making. ... the network is in the process of replacing the pyramid. ...  All of these metaphoric frames of reference elevate different values and lead in different directions for an institution's culture and governance.” (emphasis added)

(Eric Mount, (1990). Professional Ethics in Context: Institutions, Images and Empathy. Louisville: Westminster / John Knox Press. pg. 85)

Published in 1990 !!  That is almost 20 years ago!  And we are still in the middle of this struggle.  I find it interesting the linkage between our use of metaphors and how we imagine our organizations and the values and governance.  Our core values would seem to fit some metaphors better than others … do we ever have cognitive dissonance?

How do we think about our organizations?  … our customers?  … the competition? … the world?  

New beginnings

I had used a public blog in the past and ended up ignoring it too much.  I am starting a new blog to change the emphasis on what I wanted to spend time on.  I have recognized over the years that one of the common themes that links my interests is the basic assumption that we are all connected and our concepts and thinking processes are also connected.  Someone once said,  “Tug on anything at all and you'll find it connected to everything else in the universe.” (John Muir, an American naturalist)

So this new blog will ‘follow that thread’ … one idea leads to another … one person leads to another.  We are fundamentally embedded within our cultures and world-views. 

I will be blogging about where this leads me and the tools that seem to help along the way.  A couple of recurring themes are trying to see the systems underlying our behaviors and motivations, understanding our personal connections through social network analysis, and visualizations (since I am a visual learner).

My work right now is driving the network view of the world and since there is so much happening in this area,  this will certainly be a major area of focus.  I am deeply involved with several customers who are implementing social software and working on the cultural issues related to that.  I am certainly learning a lot from them and will share those experiences.