Networked Individualism and the Implications for Organisations

An interesting thought occurred to me while reading Jeffrey Keefer’s latest post at Silence and Voice (“The AIM of Social Media & Web 2.0“) that I’d like to explore here.

According to Barry Wellman’s “Little Boxes, Glocalization, and Networked Individualism” the whole notion of interrelationships, networks, and the role and place of the individual has been steadily morphing from the traditional neighborhood-based networks to one of “networked individualism.”

Wellman argues that

“…communities have changed from densely-knit “Little Boxes” (densely-knit, linking people door-to-door) to “Glocalized” networks (sparsely- knit but with clusters, linking households both locally and globally) to “Networked Individualism” (sparsely-knit, linking individuals with little regard to space).”

The cause for this Wellman indicates, is attributed to a variety of factors including social (movement from agragrian to industrial economies), infrastructural (revolutionary developments in both transportation and communication), and technological (the internet). The wake of this has lead to fundamental shifts in the nature of interrelationships and networks, as well as their the focal point.

For example, in agrarian societies an individual’s network was bound by their neighborhood and the distance they could travel on foot.  As innovations in transportation and communication took place, distance became less and less of a consideration, and people were able to expand their relationships and networks to include others farther and farther away.  This enabled a shift away from a locality-based focal point to one where the needs or objectives of the individual dictated the focus.

The emergence of the internet facilitated this on a massive scale.  Individuals are now capable of interacting in networks that are exclusively in the virtual realm.  Indeed they can be part of multiple networks at the same time.  The scope and scale of possibilities for establishing connections with others is unprecedented.

Personal Experiences

My personal experiences with the development of my personal learning networks supports this idea. I’m constantly connected with a worldwide network of people, most of whom are exploring the same ideas and concepts as I. This has facilitated many vibrant discussions and shared exploration, which has contributed enormously to my understanding of current trends as well as ideas on how they might be practically applied.

In a Connectivism context, through the externalising of ideas I have been able to socialise and negotiate around concepts and ideas. This has in turn enabled me to make conceptual (and presumably neural) connections, all of which combine to further my appreciation of the subject-matter. Furthermore, given the discoveries have taken place as a direct result of the connections I’ve made externally, the ultimate knowledge that’s emerged is distributed across the network; rather than housed inclusively in the minds of a few people.

The Implications for Organisations

The importance in the context the Littleboxes paper is that the knowledge realised through these processes has not necessarily filtered back to a local level.

As I commented on Keefer’s blog:

Most of the discovery and discussion I’m doing is taking place outside of my institution, so there is no immediate benefit to the people I interact with on a day to day basis!

If not unique to Connectivism and online communities, certainly it’s exacerbated by it (would you agree?) – especially when considering the concepts discussed in “Little Boxes, Glocalization and Networked Individual“?

In other words, if our networks are no longer dependent on geographics or locality, the resulting benefits for our local relationships (such as work colleagues) may not be immediately realised.

From the standpoint of employers this is a real issue it would seem. E.g. how to you ensure the learning experiences of your staff are filtered back into the local level?

The Challenge for Organisations

Herein is the challenge for organisations.  Greatly facilitated by the advent of the internet, employees and staff are able to interact with peers outside of the formalised organisational and heirarchical structures.  While this does provide enormous learning opportunities for individuals, the possibility exists that that their learning experiences and discoveries may not filter back into their local community.

Furthermore as Etienne Wenger has written on communities of practice, these relationships can emerge formally or informally, visibly or invisibly – and I would argue with or without the permission of the organisation.  Therefore the choice for organisations seems to be how to encourage the sharing of this information by those involved.