By modeling the organization as a network you can model how is the information that is important to the company moves(you can model it empirically and then using the diffusion equation for comparison). This will help identify possible bottlenecks in the organization. You can also extend the analysis using hypergraphs or bipartite graphs to model if physical layouts constrains information flow.

You can also model leadership characteristics in the organization by modeling the organization as a network (measuring indegree).

With regards to human resources you can also use graph analysis to cluster similar or complementary qualities and make the work space more efficient. you can also use social network analysis to figure out to whom people go to the most for advise and these people can become in principle candidates for promotion to key strategic places within the company

Dear Wahid Nouri, The link below may help you.

http://www.dataminingblog.com/data-mining-application-in-civil-engineering/

Dear Afaq Ahmed,

Thanks for your answer. But, I think you answered to my another question about the applications of data mining in civil engineering.

Anyway, thank you. That is useful.

By modeling the organization as a network you can model how is the information that is important to the company moves(you can model it empirically and then using the diffusion equation for comparison). This will help identify possible bottlenecks in the organization. You can also extend the analysis using hypergraphs or bipartite graphs to model if physical layouts constrains information flow.

You can also model leadership characteristics in the organization by modeling the organization as a network (measuring indegree).

With regards to human resources you can also use graph analysis to cluster similar or complementary qualities and make the work space more efficient. you can also use social network analysis to figure out to whom people go to the most for advise and these people can become in principle candidates for promotion to key strategic places within the company

DDear Vahid Nouri, It depends on actors of social networks. In management confidentiality is one of of the main issue.

Sure. But, for all of the organizations, we have human resources management. For example how can a manager find his employees work with the highest performance?

Or, how can we find the number of employees enough for a project?

Of course Mr. Arturo Geigel, pointed intresting ideas.

Dear Vahid,

in my experience the most important application of social networks for the benefits of an organization is given by the role the social networks may play in creating Knowledge Ecosystems -- namely social organizations that aim at the emergence of collective intelligence through the mutual promotion of the individual and the social dimension. I briefly discuss this in my paper here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/67040428/Articles/eSoC.pdf (Sect. 4.2).

The key idea of KE is described in a very nice paper by Por (Nurturing systemic wisdom through knowledge ecology. The systems thinker, 11(8)).

Citing from my paper and Por's:

"KE are based on the principle of social constructivism—the hypothesis that learning is a social process that takes place through the interactions in a society. In order to consolidate knowledge and produce wisdom, it is key that “information, ideas, insights, and inspiration cross-fertilize and feed one another free from the constraints of geography and schedule” [Por]. KE comprise three overlapping layers or networks: (1) A social network whose members’ “productive conversations” and collaborative behaviors create (2) “a knowledge network of ideas, information, and inspiration”, sustained by (3) a technology network to communicate and persist ideas, knowledge, and lessons learned through

experience. In order to function, KE must enable the quick sharing of the above ideas, information, and inspiration owned by the participating people, which is done through the technology network.

This process is called by Por “electrification” of the knowledge network. Through such process the social network becomes a “web of distributed intelligence”—a sort of collective “nervous system” that is to enhance an organization’s ability to tap into its own collective intelligence and thus formulate the most appropriate responses to turbulent environmental conditions. Said nervous system is “embedded not in computers and hardware, but in the interactions among people that bring the organization into existence day after day” [Por]."

In the above mentioned paper of mine I mainly discuss Fractal Social Organizations (FSOs) which may considered as an answer to your second question. FSOs propose something similar to Sociocracy: a set of principles and rules that allow an organization's flow of control and information to be improved to the benefit of resilience and the ability to respond to turbulent environmental conditions. I'd be glad to provide more information on FSOs. An high level discussion on FSOs has been the subject of the following post: http://www.snotskie.com/fractal-social-organizations/

Best regards,

Vincenzo

(twitter: @EnzoDeFlorio)

Social networks naturally exist in companies and they tend to take shape depending on the (communication) structures in place and the agency of the employees. Social networks support the flow of information and ideas and when you gain insight into the existing connections between employees (for instance how open, diverse, dense the network is) it's easier to understand how the company develops and consolidates knowledge in a productive way. If structure and agency seem to work counterproductive to the communities' goals you may be able to activate the right people and/or provide new opportunities for sharing (make structural changes). Social network analysis can provide insight into why and how the community works or why it seems to be at a stand still.

Fleur Prinsen makes an important point about natural networks in the company and how employees collaborate. Social network analysis can tell you how people work and about the communities of practice in the company. It may be easier to solve a problem alone, but meta-analysis of research done using Interdependence theory show that collaboration increases outcomes by about a 1/2 a standard deviation. Network analysis can tell you who is collaborating with whom, but you also need to look at what kind of person is needed for the job. They may not need to collaborate. Old research out of Bell Labs and Martin Seligman's work with Met Life the insurance company is relevant to this and network analysis. Bell Labs and Met Life both hired the people with the highest marks out of university. Bell Labs found that many of these people tended to close their doors and try to solve problems themselves, but those with better social skills often brainstormed with their friends, coming up with better solutions, faster. You see this in phenomena in Sheldon in the TV comedy the Big Bang Theory. He is brilliant, but doesn't collaborate and actually denigrates others ideas.

In the Met Life research, over half of the insurance salesman they hired, resigned after a few weeks or months. Since hiring and training was expensive, they hired Martin Seligman to investigate. In this case, it was the person's optimism and explanatory style that were important to continuing to pursue insurance sales when on average they only made one sale out of twenty (at that time).

There are two good examples that I have seen recently-- 1) an analysis of collaboration on stem cell research and productivity done by analyzing peer reviewed papers and citations and 2) analysis of emails within a medium sized business unit of a small company. While there are problems with both, that you can immediately see, they provide additional information about how networking currently serves needs.

In addition to the benefits mentioned above by different contributors,it is said that Social Networks also give insight to the Management as to the Loyalty, Trustworthiness,Behavioral Pattern etc. of Their Employees or Prospective Candidates.

P.S.

Pisupati, do you have a source I can refer to for that argument? How is loyalty and trustworthiness associated with ones position in a network?

Interesting source: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/six-myths-about-informal-networks-and-how-to-overcome-them/

Another useful reference is Cross and Parker book "the hidden power of SN". The authors also provide a detailed appendix on how to carry out a SN analysis in an organization

I have done some work in the use of SN in a University setting; but mainly student orientated.

Article Implementation of Facebook study groups as supplements for l...

I conjecture that if the organization relationships approach a threshold graph model, then efficiency is optimized. I am still working on this model and results so far look promising.

Do you think can we predict the envy between employees with SN?

Mostly, this hurt to the organization.

I think envy can only be countered through changing the company culture. Interventions in social networks persé - I don't think makes a difference, but that's my opinion, I don't know of any studies

Vahid, I know very little about the subject you are writing but I do have a question. Your question itself implies that the management does not belong to or is not part of the social networks within the firm? Am I understanding correctly? Are you separating "management" from "leadership" in your original question or are they treated the same? I apologize for my ignorance but I know little of the subject.

No problem Angela. Actually, the social networks help to the managers to manage their organization better. For example, in an organization with 2000 employee, the social networks can help to the managers to manage the human resources. They can find the relations between their employee.

Actually I think that's an excellent point, Angela. The way that the management is connected within the social network with the employees says something about the type of leadership they engage in and the ways in which they can improve their management by making strategic connections or stimulate distributed leadership.

It's all about people. And people are very complex and they create a complex culture in the organization. The understanding of all these issues is of utmost importanc to management due to the fact that no strategy is to be achieved without adequate organizational culture. Social networking can be a tool to investigate and to influence the modification of culture to be in line with the main mission and vision of the company.

Human Behaviour is the most Complex one and Unpredictable easily with one or two tests.It requires a series of Trials whether we use Social Network or not.The same person who evaluates the same answer again after a time lapse may not award the same Credit.

Consistency in the Behaviour has to be evaluated taking Recourse to AI,Leaning and Fuzzy Logic or other Soft Tools. Probably.Only then we can come to a Fairly Reliable Conclusion.If the Person comes to know that he is being evaluated through Social Network, he may deliberately try to misled,sending wrong Signals.

Good Human Relationship is the Best way to Success.

P.S.

OK, I think I may be understanding the question a little better. Vahid and Fleur, your points are very interesting from several perspectives. First of all, as an x corporate executive myself I can get into a little detail of what it is like from within the firm and as a scientist I can detail a little bit of what we now think is going on from the outside. You will find that there is a huge disconnect and that is in fact why I got my doctorate.

So first, let me tell you a little about having worked for small and also very large firms, from the bottom through all levels of management to executive levels. Social networks, as you describe them, do not cross boundaries of levels of management. For example, when I was a lower level management subject (straight out of my MBA), I would be excluded from all social networks for probably lack of trust and lack of experience.

Later as time and my experience grew, I started to belong to social networks of "my own levels and kinds" but not those of social networks below or above my social status within the firm. And this is important: there is such as social status within firms.

So when we are talking about social networks, we need to define which level of social networks.

Now when I became a corporate executive, I no longer belonged to any social network! Once one leaves the role of management and starts the role of leadership, there are no more social networks! This is very important and there is a reason for this.

To detail the reason, let me now put my scientist hat on. While I was at Visa (the credit card company) I noticed that at any given day there were 3 consulting companies on the premises but the company never followed any of their directions... I was wondering why. So I got my doctorate in behavioral connection to decision making for this reason.

I discovered that there are huge biological/chemical differences between people who become leaders and those who are managers. These differences of chemicals (hormones actually) are so important that if you put the wrong person into the wrong position, he/she will end up sick. Leaders have different levels and also different needs of levels of key stress hormones and enjoy these hormones when they release whereas a manager or a worker with no responsibility will feel totally lost, scared, overwhelmed and stress will set in (the famed Peter's Principle is exactly this!).

So when we are talking about improving the firm and the role of social networks, not only do we have to separate the social networks according to levels and occupations but also according to hormones...

Thus we need to add to social networks also hormonal networks, DNA networks, etc. It is funny... but not too funny.

Interesting, Angela. Don't you think people can grow into leadership positions when they learn to handle stressful situations bit by bit? In that case you can think of where a person needs to be in the social network -easing them in? There is so much to think about, also different supporting roles people in firms take to initiate or facilitate growth/ initiative

Dear Vahid Nouri, You may enjoy reading the material available at link below.

http://www.academia.edu/241830/The_uses_of_social_network_analysis_in_planning_a_review_of_the_literature

It was interesting. Also, a class started in www.Coursera.org about SNA:

https://www.coursera.org/course/sna

Fleur, the short answer is "no". Chemicals of the brain are organized by our genetic setup (which are of course flexible and mutate to some point but have limitations to what point). One cannot change a genetic makeup with education to be able to handle stress hormones better than what our genes allow us. There have been many experiments with these hormones and they have in fact been used to predict the success or lack of success of traders on the London trading floor.

Some things one cannot learn. I was in Spain giving a lecture at the University of Barcelona a few years ago to a classroom of faculty. I nearly fainted from the following. I was discussing exactly this: that leadership skills are skills one is born with (as a result of hormonal requirements to handle stress comfortably), and cannot be taught.

Then one faculty asked for an example of something that cannot be learned by education and I mentioned "being an opera singer one must have skills and talent" and he responded "oh no! Anyone can become an opera singer.. all it takes is learning". I literally was speechless for a few minutes.

We must understand that not everything can be learned by everyone just because it is there...

Thank you for the clarification, Angela. As an educational psychologist I like to look for things which áre possible to change, but we do need to keep looking at the evidence, that's for sure.

Dear Angela, you said :" leadership skills are skills one is born with and cannot be taught ". So, how an organization can find great managers? I think with SNA. Is it right?

Vahid: managers do not equal to leaders... be very careful with the distinction. Let me see if I can do a better job in explaining.

Managers do not make decisions of the direction the firm is heading; they make decisions over projects. Leaders do not have projects; they lead the firm decisions and decide the direction of the firm.

Managers oversee employees; leaders oversee the market.

This disconnect has got many CEOs fired in the recent past.

Managers:

As for how to find great managers: not necessarily SNA since the manager to be hired from the outside will not belong to any SNA yet in the firm. So no, SNA is not helpful in finding good managers from the outside as I can see it. From the inside by promotion, SNA is again not helpful since the employee belongs to a particular SNA that is different from the SNA of the managers. So he/she must be accepted into the SNA of the managers to be successful. So again, SNA is not helpful.

Leaders:

Good leaders change according to the company's maturity. The company will require a high risk-taker when the firm starts out; a new leader as the company grows, yet another leader type when the company enters maturity, etc.,--a curve well taught in every MBA program. This is why you see that leaders change in firms as the firm matures.

Managers on the other hand may stay put in the same role for years or even for life.

One can learn to be a good manager because managing needs skills learned of managing details; leadership needs skills of managing risks--that is not a skill that can be learned but one must have the right chemicals for.

I hope it is clearer now how different these roles are and what they require for success.

Your answer was great, Angela. Thanks a lot.

Glad it was helpful. :)

Nazar, protein and people do not network the same way...

Hi,

As Schuler, Jackson (2005) told, executives by improving their social networks can influence in political group in organizational environement an at the end can get accept for their decisions. Based upon, institutional Theory you see that it's true.

If you are interested in the difference between managers and leaders, there is lots written on this topic. Both are needed, but the skill sets are different. Peter Drucker likely wasn't the first to write about managers and leaders, but he was the first one read. There are more modern versions:

Dr. John Kotter

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/01/management-is-still-not-leadership/

I really like Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner

http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/About-section-Our-Authors.aspx

Many people have great ideas, but leaders are able to convince others that their vision is worth following. As Taraneh says, leaders create a network.

I agree Sharon--in fact I got my PhD in a graduate school associated with the Peter Drucker Graduate School of Management (mine is in neuroeconomics at the Claremont Graduate University, of which Peter Drucker's MBA school is part of but I already had my MBA when I started my PhD so I did not attend most of his lectures only a few).

I took his studies further by running experiments on executives and management--still in process at Max Planck Institute in Germany--and we show that the brain regions for making decisions for managers as opposed to leaders is different. Different hormones are required and in different quantities for success. Hence "leader" and "manager" are not interchangeable terms.

Very few people agree to this because if what we are saying (and seeing by experiments) is true, then business schools have only meaning for management training and not leadership. A different type of school is needed to teach leadership skills and that necessitates a blood test prior to admittance for the proper hormonal/neuropeptide setup of the brain and that will always be politically incorrect in the US or other democratic countries.

Hope this makes sense.