Appendix: Moving Forward
In a 2006 survey of CEOs, it was found that technology is very much on their minds: some expected that technology would drive most of the changes in their organizations in the next three to five years, and even those that didn't see it as a driver saw it as an important facilitator of organizational change. The present perception is that technology has created a greater ability to be flexible and open - but that this openness has also brought with it serious risks that technology has yet to solve. The same can be said for peer networks: there is great potential and great risk, and the entire subject is rather poorly understood but seen as something that will drive or facilitate change.
It is particularly true in an increasingly global business environment, where operations must be coordinated around the globe and even small to medium-sized companies need to find ways to improve their performance to maintain their market position.
The traditional organization structure of command and control, with rigid hierarchies that required a great deal of communication and debate to get authorization to take action whose value is plainly evident to those on the front lines, has long been inefficient - but in the present day is counterproductive and untenable in competitive markets. There can be little argument in favor of arbitrary divisions of personnel and process that delay the ability to take prompt action.
The author insists that "It's not a question of whether organizations will have to adapt to a P2P landscape, it is just a question of when" and then does a bit of cheerleading to encourage readers to champion the new way within their organizations.
(EN: It's likely more accurate to suggest this is really a standoff in which competing firms in an industry can remain inefficient until one of them breaks from the herd - and if making these changes is productive, the others will lose out until they can also make the adaptation. But that "if" is significant because not every firm or industry would benefit from making the leap and some might even be damaged.)
She suggests that networking is already happening within many firms: people seek to make contacts with people in other departments, and much gets accomplished in these informal networks within rigidly structured firms - though nodes generally need to figure out how to work around the rules of systems that were put in place decades ago to prevent people from working together efficiently and bypassing the bureaucracy and red tape.
A list of things that can be done:
- Develop or expand your informal connections in the workplace. Always seek opportunities to meet people you don't know.
- Work around the system, but also question the rules of the system - use your success to question procedures, policies, and practices that maintain the bureaucracy
- Identify areas within the organization that are already functioning as networks and observe how they are able to break out of the channels that restrict other areas
- Look for case studies in competitors and other firms that show the success that can be achieved by networking
- Promote the principles of peer networking within the organization
- When approaching projects or solving problems, make sure your thoughts are not restricted to the rules of the existing hierarchy to find more effective and efficient ways to achieve solutions
- If you're not in a leadership role, simply asking other for opinions and advice can help you discover networking activities inside a company
- Keep your own rolodex of people you have worked with, noting their areas of expertise, as a method of reconnecting with them whenever it is productive to do so
- Above all, avoid defending the status quo. Ask the pointed question of "why?" before falling in line.
From here, a bit more cheerleading, and a final call to work toward transforming firms into a networked structure.