A few thoughts on "Organizational Success"

After reviewing the preceding postings I think we all have an idea what “Social Networks” (SNs) are. But sometimes I didn’t get the link between the postings and our debate claim:

“By 2020, social networks will be recognized as the main drivers of organizational success”

To judge whether SNs will be generally accepted (“recognized”) as the main providers of impulse or motivation (“drivers”) of organizational success we have to find out what this shiny expression “organizational success” (OS) means and if there are any interdependencies with SNs.

While reading the postings I have the impression that SNs are either understood as networks to make business (in the sense of finding business opportunities) or dealing with “informal” and “discretionary” intra-company structures. With respect to OS I think the first approach is out of scope and the understanding of “networks” only as a form of organization is not convincing to be a “main driver”. If SNs don’t conform to organizational company structure how can such subsurface and sometimes subordinate systems become generally accepted (“best practice”)? And even if SNs would turn out as “best practice” they are still only form, a structure in which the business is organized and not driven. It’s the other way round: form follows function.

[I arrived to this opinion after reading a summary of Walter W. Powels article “Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization”. It can be found here. http://www.cooperationcommons.com/node/373
Further reading on other organizational forms:
http://webpages.csom.umn.edu/smo/avandeven/MGT8302/Org%20form%20rept%20Fischlein&Fudge.pdf ]

To judge if there are (convincing) interdependencies we should have a closer look on what different authors think what “organizational success” is and how it can be achieved.

My favorite view is that of Peter Drucker. According to Drucker OS is not driven by economic motives especially not by profit maximization. Instead of that OS lies outside the scope of the company and depends on Marketing and Innovation. As we learned in our marketing course Marketing is *not* advertising and promotion but finding out customers “needs”. If a company knows in which market it is in, the offered (=“needed”) products should sell itselfJ. Innovation (according to Drucker) has to be understood as developing “better” products or services to bring further value to the customer.

After googeling a few other opinions on OS

http://www.teamworkdynamics.com/id134.html
http://www.strategyletter.com/CD0304/featured_article.php
http://www.comptechdoc.org/man/begin/mankeys.html

it can be stated that none of those concepts has identified “SNs” as a main or key driver yet. But nearly every concept deals with teams and teamwork (internal) and regards the company environment (external). And there might be a link between OS and SNs.

SNs consist of ties between nodes whereas nodes can be individuals (employees or customers) or corporations (own, suppliers, customers, other groups in the world). Ties might be any given relationship between two nodes (intra-company, corporation-corporation or corporation-customer).

If we attribute notes to human individuals and assume that business depends on the interaction between people (Thomas E. Ambler states in his Golden Rule article:”No organization can operate without teams. After all, an organization is fundamentally a team of teams—some short-term, some long-term. Organizational success depends on how well these teams work“) we can at least establish an influence of SNs on business and therefore organizational success. Within “capitalism” labor is part of the means of production. So it is reasonable that labor “optimized” by SNs may enhances overall success. This even holds true with a Marxian view on labor whereupon the most desirable form of labor organization in the workplace is where workers manage themselves collectively. And a collective is nothing but a cooperative unit or in other words a “Social Network”.