Social Networks and Computer Networks

The analogy of human networks to computer networks is a bit hackneyed, and it’s difficult to put a fresh spin on the worn-out metaphor – but I stumbled across a discussion that touched upon the psychology of the various roles, and the information seemed worth preserving:

Network Model

The base metaphor considers there to be four function in social networks that are similar to items in the computer network:

• Users – those who have a task to do and need the resources of the network to accomplish them
• Workstations – those who have the responsibility of doing the work at the behest of the user
• Servers – those who have a great deal of information, but who will only share it if asked.
• Routers – Those who help connect other notes on the network, connecting those who need something to others who have it.

This analogy works fairly well when the network is employed for a practical task, though the model does seem to lead to pigeon-holing and oversimplification: no person is entirely a router without server capabilities, the user and the workstation are often embodied in the same individual, etc.   But if you regard these as four functions, not four roles, it seems more or less accurate.

Capabilities

Discussions of the base metaphor describe the roles in terms of the capabilities of the individual involved.  

• Users – To be part of the system, the user must have a need that the system is capable of fulfilling.
• Workstations – To fill the user’s needs, a workstation must have the capability to fo the tasks required.
• Servers – To enable the workstations, a server must have the resources that are required to support the workstation’s task.
• Routers – To connect various parts of the system in a useful way, the router must have knowledge of the capabilities and resources of each system to which it is connected.

However, this is where the metaphor failsL human beings are not machines that do what they are capable of simply because they have that capability.   While capabilities are a functional obstacle (or functional enabler), human beings are primarily ruled by their motivations.  They try to do what they prefer to do, and try to avoid doing what they prefer not to do.

Motivations

The discussion itself focused on the motivations of the various “nodes” in the human network – how are they motivated to perform the functions described by these roles?   People will often attempt to do something of which they are incapable, or will refuse to do something of which they are perfectly capable.   So motivation is a significant factor.

The user is the most straightforward part of the network.  By definition, the user needs to accomplish a task and needs the resources of the network to do so.  The first need is their motivation to undertake the task and the second need is their motivation to interact with the network.   So long as the task is compelling and the network is believed to be a means of accomplishing it, the user will be motivated to interact.

The workstation is the most necessary part of the network, but its motivation tends to be less straightforward.  In an organizational network, workers are paid to do their jobs for the users – though this is extrinsic motivation that is not present in most social contexts, and even in the professional context compensation is regarded as a weak motivation.   The workstation is motivated by the intrinsic rewards of performing its function – a sense of task identity, or a sense of capability and usefulness.

The server, likewise, is most responsive when it receives intrinsic rewards from the tasks it performs.   While there is generally not a task involved, information-sharing can be considered analogous to a task in the sense that it is a useful function.   Hence the server gains esteem from being regarded as an expert, and has a sense of usefulness when its capabilities are put to practical application.

The router’s extrinsic rewards are similar to those of the server: while it does not have subject-matter expertise in a specific functional domain, its expertise is in making connections.  Said another way, the router is an expert in the network itself, with knowledge of the nodes and their capabilities.   Its rewards are the esteem of being regarded as an expert, and the sense of usefulness when this knowledge facilitates the performance of the network.

Conclusion 

Having attempted to summarize the motivations of the network roles, it seems to me that the factors of most of the network are entirely similar – exercising the ability to put knowledge and skills to a practical purpose, and the esteem that comes from so doing.  These are very closely related to the topic of job satisfaction – though a social network is not necessarily a commercial network, it has similar functions in the performance of tasks (with or without extrinsic monetary rewards) and the intrinsic rewards of any useful role are almost identical, the chief difference being in the means by which those rewards are achieved.