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.
No comments:
Post a Comment