Network mapping with Email

I think the tool that Cross talks about that tracks emails to map a network sounds absolutely fascinating. Thinking about my Gmail frequent contacts list and who I email often generally follows who I regularly meet with. Applying that concept of email mapping to work, in my case, it would show that I almost never contact certain coworkers that simply aren't useful to me (as harsh as that sounds). It also shows what coworkers in other areas of the company or organization are important to my work. This goes back to the informal networks that are frequently more useful than formal organizational charts and networks. To be able to map out those informal networks through this email tracking application just sounds amazing.

Surprised by Ineffective links?

The first question asked of Cross in the interview with him surprised me because of Cross's answer. Cross said that people are not surprised that informal networks allow work to be done (which I agree isn't surprising) but he did say people were surprised to learn who is and isn't influential in a network. I don't think that in any organization I've worked for the official organization chart is the way to get things done. For example, in my current job as an RA, in order to get a facilities problem fixed I'm supposed to report it online to 2FIX and to my supervisor through an online reporting system. This is supposed to allow for more accountability and to ensure the work is completed. In actuality, for a repair to happen, I need to seek out one of the facilities guys that I've established a relationship with and tell them what I need done. Once I tell them, I'll put in a work order through the traditional means so they can show their supervisor that they're doing work. If I just submit the request online, I've been told that the request prints out and is often looked over and can take weeks or months to get worked on. In another job in a more formal office environment, if I need to get information about something, I rarely went to my supervisor (my only "organizational" link to the company as a whole) but went to other personnel in other parts of the company directly. If I went directly to my supervisor, it would have taken too long to get my answer. By ignoring the main links in my organizational charts, I can use "informal" networks very effectively, which is one point of Cross. However, it doesn't make sense that the informal links surprise people, which is what Cross asserts.

Social Networks vs. Social Groups

The most interesting item I took from this week's reading in Howard Rheingold's Smart Mobs was that it's better to look at social groups as social networks. Barry Wellman said that groups are special networks that are "densely-knit, tightly-bounded and multistranded." This really makes sense to me because I don't know of any of my friends that are in a single group that doesn't have any outside connections. Also, many of my group memberships do not overlap with any other members except myself. I am the only "node" connecting many of my group-networks.

Large groups don't necessarily have to be group-networks. For example, American University isn't closely bound enough among all its students to be considered a group-network. It is a network because it is a loose binding of its members. However, several American University alums working together at a firm could be members of a group-network because their small size creates a tight enough bond. The AU group-network isn't a group by itself because of the network that created it--the firm where the alums worked. The AU group-network also isn't a "group" because there are many outside network connections. Each group-network serves as a node between different people and creating connections.

First Post!

This is my first blog post for my Six Degrees and Social Networking class at my university.

On my honor, all posts on this blog are my own.