Friday's seminar by Dr Karen Stehenson at NESTA (sponsored by Entheo) was fascinating. The content of the day was very high level and well pitched to an audience, many of whom I know to be very well informed on the subject of networks theory. Dr Stephensen is pretty unusual and intellectually impressive, for a number of reasons. She has a very multidisciplinary academic background, a mixture of science, maths and anthropology. This diversity has afforded her opportunities to undertake unusual and unique research into human networks which aims to solve a variety of complex problems. Dr Stephensen is also interesting in her ability to maintain an enviable position both in academic and practical worlds.
The content of the day was substantial so I couldn't give a full description of her work. Dr Stephensen has many articles which can be downloaded on her website. However there were some points which I have been thinking about since, and applying to various situations. The idea that multiple network structures co-exist within organisations, alongside the hierarchical structure, is fascinating, and in retrospect makes sense of a number of situations I can remember.
The networks that Dr Stephensen discusses are as follows:
Work (with whom do you exchange information as part of your daily work routines?)
Social (with whom do you 'check in', inside and outside the office, to find out what is going on?)
Career Guidance (whom do you go for advice about the future?)
Innovators (with whom do you collaborate, or kick around new ideas?)
Experts (to whom do you turn for expertise or advice?)
Process Improvers (who do you work with to improve existing processes or methods)
One aspect did slightly puzzle me. Dr Stephensen made a very precise demarkation between personal and professional relationships. One of the conversations that people have had more lately is that since social network sites such as Facebook or Twitter, that the boundaries between personal and professional are not as clear as they used to be. Perhaps Dr Stephensen meant that her networks analysis had taken place 'within a professional setting'. For me however relationships are relationships, and the same 'trust behaviours' would be needed for good bonds, regardless of setting.
Last month
Jemima Gibbons talked about digital 'social convergence' and quoted A
lex Hoye, CEO of digital agency, Latitude on her brilliant blog:“One of the first struggles I had was that my work persona, my home persona and my family persona all had to be one and the same and initially that meant some filtering - and there is some filtering in there - but on the other hand it means that you’re actually more natural in all three now which is a real cultural revolution in some ways.”
One other point that Dr Stephensen discussed was social homogeneity, i.e. the human propensity to seek out friends and networks with whom we share similarities such as background, social economic status, appearance etc. Some studies have shown that in communities of homogeneity that individuals within it experience increased wellbeing. For example widows who live in communities with many other widows are less lonely than those widows that don't. There are many other examples of this, most not as benign as the widows example. Natural propensities towards homogeneity often result in unhealthy exclusionary groups or networks and diversity is worth engineering pro-actively (Diversity with a big D as Dr Stephensen described).
Thanks to Dr Stephensen, Natalie Turner (Entheo) and Roland Harwood (NESTA) for hosting a really interesting day!
Recent Comments