Network competencies
Mgr. Tereza Francová, Department of Managerial Psychology and Sociology, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Economics,Prague, Czech Republic,
Prof. Ljubica Bakić-Tomić, Ph.D., Faculty of Teacher Education, University of Zagreb, Croatia,
Armano Srbljinović, M.Sc., Institute for Research and Development of Defence Systems, Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia,
Abstract
Network competencies and skills are the key ones for people who work with information and knowledge. These competenciesenable creation and maintenance of social networks. The scope of relations amongnetwork membersranges from purely formal connections to deeply personal ties. Network relationships are based on social trust, the willingness of participants to be helpful and cooperate, and their expectations of getting something in return. Networks exist within companies and organisations, but can also cross their borders. They grow thanks to competencies of individuals, but companies can purposively and systematically support development of network competenciesto their advantage.
Key words: networking, network, competencies, communication skills, social skills, information, knowledge, knowledge worker, knowledge management, social capital
Introduction
Networking is about working with networksof individuals, companies, company departments, organisations, organisational subunits and/or various other agencies.It is a common characteristic of components and nodes of a social network that theyare able to offer something to each other and that they are willing to do so.Networking is a process of making personal and professional contacts with other people, creating networks which transmit advice, information, support, energy, and other tangible or intangible goods (Boe, 2000).
Much of the popular literature often focuses on "how to find the right contact". You can find many pieces of advice on how to behave, what to say, even how to think when you meet people (RoAne, 2004). All of this may be very useful, but we must also not forget to take care about the contacts that we already have. It is necessary to invest efforts in maintainingalready existing relationships and in strengthening them further by building mutual trust.
One may become a part of a network because he or she gets to know someonewho already belongs to the network. In other words, a direct personal relationship (e.g. a friend, or a family member) or a dyadic economic interaction (e.g. a colleague, or a client) with a network member may take place and serve as a means of introducing a new member. In some cases new members are recruited by making use of the network’s social capital, as when a third party acts as an intermediary in connecting an old member with a new one. In all of these cases a certain amount of trust exists from the beginning.
Subsequently, mutual trust is enhanced in several ways. The first possible means of developing additional trust isby deepening of a personal relationship. The second vehicle is deepening of a dyadic economic interaction through acquiring experience from specific work situations, knowledge of concrete skills, competencies etc. The third means of developing mutual trust is the evolution of reputation (Hite, 2005).
Networks, their components, relationshipsamong them, and the quality of trust are not static."[N]etworks are dynamic objects not just because things happen in networked systems, but because the networks themselves are evolving and changing in time, driven by the activities or decisions of those very components." (Watts, 2003, p. 28). Networks evolve over time as more members are acquired, as they meet each otherand form recurring patterns of interaction. In most circumstances, the relationships become more personal and the mutual trust gradually increases.
Network competencies
Network competencies consist of variousskills, attitudes and other personal characteristics. Researchersexamined characteristics such as gender, socioeconomic background, self-esteem, extraversion, and attitudes toward workplace politics. They also recommended several other characteristics to be examined, e.g. self-efficacy and self-monitoring(Forret and Dougherty, 2001).The focus of these analysesison the amount of networking, and not on its quality.
Let us think for a moment about the quality or the success in networking. What could be the key personal characteristics for successful networking? Social skills are crucial for establishing first contacts. Communication skills, such as active listening, the ability to provide timelyfeedback information, negotiation skills, and the ability to use convincing arguments are of particular importance for maintaining a productive relationship. Very important also is the attitude – the willingness to be open and receptive, to help, cooperate, share information and knowledge, take initiative, etc. Other desirable characteristicsinclude steadiness, perseverance and patience.
Whether a business contact will become personal depends not on the characteristics of one party only. There should be some similarities between the two parties involved as, for instance, a common working style or the acceptance of common values, mutual sympathy etc.
However, similarities must not dominate all the aspects of a relationship and the participants also have to differ in certain respects. They may have different competencies, different access to other agents or artefacts, or different points of view on them. The interplay between homogeneity and heterogeneitybrings about the necessary compatibility as, for example, when one party is interested in using an artefact, and the other in supplying it. Compatibility of such kind is known as "aligned directedness" (Lane and Maxfield, 1996).
Trust, in general, is a property of a social relation. "It depends, of course, on the nature of my interests, your interests, our knowledge of each other, and possibly other attributes (such as gender, occupation, or education level). It also depends, however, on the larger context of our social relations and the broader network of relations that surround us." (Cook and Hardin, 2001, p. 331).
One must be aware that an individual cannot join networks indefinitely. Human ability to maintain connections to other individuals is limited. "In all known times and contexts,[…] the scope of effective acquaintance, persons known in the relevant minimal sense, clusters around one thousand as median. Or, to focus on just the relations intense enough to persist indefinitely vis-à-vis ego, there seem to be around sixteen as a mode […]" (White, 1992, p.76). Human brain is optimised for keeping track of social relationships in groups of 150 or less (Dunbar, 1998). Sparsely connected networks may undoubtedly grow to a much larger extent, but fundamental limits on the number of connections maintained by individual membersstill apply.
Networking and intellectual capital
Networking may provide an important strategy for managing one’s career (Forret and Dougherty, 2001). "When a man changes jobs, he is not only moving from one network of ties to another, but also establishing a link between these. Such a link is often of the same kind which facilitated his own movement." (Granovetter, 1973, p. 1373). Granovetter observed that weak ties are especially important for getting useful job information because "those to whom we are weakly tied are more likely to move in circles different from our own and will thus have access to information different from that which we receive." (ibid., p. 1371). "This suggests that the kind of people you know is more important for obtaining information than the number of people you know." (Wellman and Gulia, 1998).
The importance of networking at the individual level cannot be overstated, but the beneficial effects of networking are even greater at the more aggregated level of organisational units.The effects can be observed both within an organisation as well as across the networked organisations.
Networking may be viewed as a part of the intellectual capital of anorganisation, which comprises human capital, social capital, and organisation capital (Armstrong, 2002).Human capital consists of experience, knowledge and skills of the personnel, including the earlier mentioned individual competencies enabling successful networking. Social capital is "the structure of individuals’ contact networks – the pattern of interconnection among the various people with whom each person is tied" (Raider and Burt, 1996).
Organisation capital refers tovarious forms of knowledge contained in databases, manuals, codes and processes of the organisation. An important property of the organisation capital is that it does not disappear with adeparture of any key individual. This is particularly true for flexible network structures where individuals easily change their roles depending on external circumstances. When a node of the network is lost, the surrounding nodes quickly establish new connections and share responsibilities of the former member. The network changes its structure and adapts rapidly, without a loss of functionality (Penzar and Srbljinović, 2005).
Network connections between individuals and organisational units are often multiple, so that in reality complex multiple networks and hierarchies often exist. Hence we may speak about a whole meta-network of networks consisting of the operative network, the financial network, the administrative network, the network of trust, the knowledge network, the information network, etc. The same nodemay have different roles in these different networks (Carley et al., 2002).
Knowledge workers
The key employees nowadays are knowledge workers, who bring advantage to organisations, mostly in the form of knowledge and innovation.We are tempted to see only managers as knowledge workers, even though teachers, scientists, doctors, and members of many other professions develop, use, or work with knowledge.
Although knowledge workers operate relatively independently, they also share information and knowledge[1] and form knowledge networks. As they are hold responsible for quality results, they endeavour to enhance their knowledge and skills, create new knowledge and bring innovations. Theyoften need an all-encompassing view of not only their company, but also of the entire branch that their company belongs to (Truneček, 2004). To attain such a broad perspective, knowledge workersutilise both internal and external organisational networks.
Whether an employee will become an active net-worker depends on personal as well as on organisational characteristics.Organisational environment provides a sort of an ecology in which an individual's network competencies may thrive or deteriorate. "For example, each learner in an organisation possesses a personal learning network. The health of this network is influenced by the suitability of the ecology in which the learner exists. If the ecology is healthy, it will permit networks to flourish and grow. If the ecology is not healthy, networks will not develop optimally." (Siemens, 2006, p.92).
The role of organisations
What can anorganisation do to support networking activities on the individual level? Networking cannot be entirely directed, but it can be supported at least. Very important in this respect is a firm’sorganisational culture, together with the shared values on which it is founded, and the management style which it encourages. Recruiters of new personnel should focus not only on human capital in the form of knowledge and skills of the personnel, but also on the networking activities and the characteristics of networks, i.e. on social capital.
Information and database systems as tools to store and share information, e.g. contacts, and knowledge are also very important. Organisations should support employees in networking activities within a company, as well asencourage them to join inter-organisational networks, especially those linking professionals and knowledge workers. Employees should have the opportunitiesto actively participate in workshops and seminars, teach courses, foster relations with public media, etc.
Lane and Maxfield argue that one of the crucial preconditions for an organisation to prosper in a constantly changing environment is development of especially productive network relationships called "generative relationships" (Lane and Maxfield, 1996). Generative relationships produce new sources of value that cannot be foreseen in advance, and they are indispensable in coping with complex foresight horizons. The key featuresof generative relationships include the earlier mentioned characteristics of aligned directedness, heterogeneity, and recurring patterns of interaction, as well as the appropriate permissions to enter the relationship, and the action opportunities to realize the generative potential.
References
Armstrong, M. (2002);Řízení lidských zdrojů; Grada Publishing, Praha
Boe, A. (2000);Úspěšný networking; Zábavné a prosperující obchodní vztahy; Alman, Brno
Carley, K.M., Lee, J.-S. and D. Krackhardt (2002); Destabilizing Networks; Connections, Vol. 24, No. 3 (pp. 79-92)
Collison, C. and G. Parcel (2005);Knowledge Management; Computer Press, Brno
Cook, K.S. and R. Hardin (2001); Norms of Cooperativeness and Networks of Trust; Social Norms (eds. M. Hechter and K.-D. Opp), Russell Sage Foundation (pp. 327-347)
Dunbar, R. (1998); Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language; HarvardUniversity Press
Forret, M.L. and T.W. Dougherty (2001);Correlates of Networking Behavior for Managerial and Professional Employees; Group & Organization Management, Vol. 26, No. 3(pp. 283-311)
Granovetter, M. (1973); The Strength of Weak Ties; American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 6 (pp. 1360-1380)
Hite, J.M. (2005);Evolutionary Processes and Paths of Relationally Embedded Network Ties in Emerging Entrepreneurial Firms; Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 29, No. 1 (pp. 113-144)
Jirásek, J. (2004);Souboj mozků vřízení; Alfa Publishing, Praha
Lane D. and R. Maxfield (1996);Strategy under Complexity: Fostering Generative Relationships;International Journal of Strategic Management: LongRange Planning, Vol.29, No. 2 (pp. 215-231)
Michael, J. and G. Youkl (2003);Managerial Level and Subunit Function as Determinants of Networking Behavior in Organizations; Group & Organization Management, Vol. 18, No. 3 (pp. 328-351)
Penzar D. and A. Srbljinović (2005); About modelling of complex networks with applications to terrorist group modelling; Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1 (pp. 27-43)
Raider, H.J. and R.S. Burt (1996); Boundaryless careers and social capital; The Boundaryless Career (eds. M.B. Arthur and D.M. Rousseau), Oxford University Press (pp. 187-200)
RoAne, S. (2004); How to Create Your Own Luck: The "You Never Know" Approach to Networking, Taking Chances, and Opening Yourself to Opportunity; John Wiley and Sons
Siemens, G. (2006); Knowing Knowledge; Lulu.com;
Stephenson, K. (1998); What Knowledge Tears Apart, Networks Make Whole; Reprinted from Internal Communication Focus, No. 36;
Tapscott, D. (1999);Digitální ekonomika – Naděje a hrozby věku informační společnosti; Computer Press, Brno
Truneček, J. (2004/2);Znalostní podnik ve znalostní společnosti;Professional Publishing, Praha
Watts, D.J. (2003); Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age; W.W. Norton & Company
Wellman, B. and M. Gulia (1998); Net Surfers Don't Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities; Networks in the Global Village (ed. B. Wellman), Westview Press (pp. 331-367)
White, H.C. (1992); Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action; PrincetonUniversity Press
1
[1]There is an important difference in the meaning of terms "data", "information", and "knowledge". Data are facts that describe reality, and they have no meaning without an appropriate context. Information connects data with a goal, so that there is an interpretation providing meaning. Knowledge presents a still higher form because it includes experience with the information, carrying a sense of "know how". There are two rather different types of knowledge, explicit and implicit. Explicit knowledge is easy to describe, explain and share. Implicit or tacit knowledge may be difficult to recognize because we do not usually realize when we make recourse to tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is nevertheless shared through formal and non-formal networks and trust is a catalyst for the creation and transfer of tacit knowledge (Stephenson, 1998).