The Effect of Networks on Us

There are three networks that impact us in differing ways. We experience networks of institutions, networks of connections (social media), and networks of relationships. This is part one of two posts.

As human beings, we reveal ourselves in the patterns of behavior that define our lives. The first years of my consulting practice began in the mid-1990s, and these patterns showed themselves across the spectrum of organizations. The result of my observations led to the development of my Circle of Impact model of leadership.

The model is designed to align three dimensions – Ideas, Relationships, and Structure – with a clear understanding of the impact that the person, the group, or the organization seeks to achieve.

The Structure dimension of the Circle of Impact is manifested in two ways. There is the organizational structure that consists of the four functions or products and services, operational support, and the governance and finance functions. The other structure is social. It forms through “a persistent, residual culture of values.” Now, these values are not necessarily healthy ones. If a company’s culture is toxic, then the Relationship dimension is a source of the problem. We can know this by identifying the level of respect, trust, and mutual accountability in the relationships of the people within the organization. A healthy culture persists because it resides in the relationships of shared values and purpose.  This culture constitutes the social structure of the organization.

We are living in the later stages of modern society. If you look, you can see its end on the horizon without yet knowing what will follow it. Our society developed out of a rationalistic, mechanism culture that fueled the rise of modern science and industry. One of the results is that people became functional parts of the machine of business. Job titles came to define the value of the person. Wealth and power defined one’s place in society. This became true of both the principal ideologies of the modern world, capitalism and socialism.

The value of the human person got lost in this multi-century development process. We can see this in how we understand the three networks that form the structure of modern society.

Three Networks

The three networks are …

Networks of Institutions,

Networks of Connections, and

Networks of Relationships.

These three networks have a daily impact on our lives. It is important to understand the difference between the three.

Network Difference

Networks are a way that we define ourselves. Our identities are shaped by these networks.

Networks of Institutions

We live in a world of organizations. The network relation to that world is institutional.

The institutional structure of the society was formed by the two parts of the Structure dimension described above. We know who we are by the organizations that provide the context of our life and work. Our relationships are ordered by the social and organizational structures of the workplace, schools, recreational activities, religious congregations, and community organizations.

Our Relationship to the Organization

In the first chapter of Circle of Impact: Taking Personal Initiative To Ignite Change, I tell the story of William who finds himself at midcareer forced to leave the company that he has served since college. He has to look for a new career. It is a story too long to reproduce in its entirety here. But this selection captures the point that I am trying to make.

“William realizes that at his age and level of compensation, it is not easy to transfer to a new department or another company. He correctly sees himself at a transition point in his career. As he reflects on his situation with his wife and children, they decide that it is time to see what other opportunities are available to him outside the company. Does he start over in a new industry? Does he start his own business? His children will reach college age over the next few years, so financial considerations are important in this time of change.  …

William and I sit down for coffee and to discuss his situation. Our conversation goes like this:

“William, what has changed since you heard about the changes at work? How do you understand the transition point that you see yourself in the midst of right now?”

“As a family, we are choosing to see this change as an oppor­tunity, not something to approach with fear. But in saying that, this is a very new experience for me, and I recognize that this is not like any decision that I have made before. I need some guid­ance and direction on how to think about this change.” …

In our conversation, William admits that he has never really thought about his purpose. He realizes that he has absorbed the company’s purpose as his own. He has been happy with the company because the company’s values and his are well aligned. William’s first step is to be able to see his life and work as some­thing separate from the company. He needs to look at his life as a whole. He needs to see himself as a whole person—body, mind, and spirit—doing things that truly matter to him. He needs to understand his desire for meaning and significance which are expressions of his best self. And, he needs to see all this within the context of providing financially for his family. This is not a simple problem, with a simple solution. It is a complex one that needs a perspective that integrates all parts of his life.

William’s situation is not unique or extraordinary, but rather quite normal. It illustrates how a long-term connection to an organization can have the effect of conforming us to the structure of the institution. We lose some aspect of ourselves. We are unaware of the effect that our deep association to an institution can have upon us. This is why having connections and relationships outside these institutional relationships are important for our lives.

Network of Connections

With the advent of the internet and the development of social media, the institutional context for defining our lives is changing. Now, we are being exposed to people and ideas, images and movements that are much more social than institutional. It is as if the entire population of planet Earth being relocated was relocated over a generation to Alpha Centauri.

Where before, our relationships were more institutional, now they are more connectional. They are not really more social, except in the sense of the interaction that comes from our connections. If you look at your social media profiles, you’ll find a number that designates those who are connections or friends. What precisely does this mean?

It is not clear that it means these people are new relationships. Instead, these connections are mediated through an institutional structure of the platforms that social media companies have developed. The patterns of behavior that show up on our screens are changing how our brains work, and by extension how we relate to people. As a result, it is easier for these companies to require conformity to the social rules of the platform.  The platform replaces the institution as a source of identification. Except here, identity is no longer an organizational role. Instead, our identities become symbolic of the values or ideas that provide us with connections in society.

Social media is a collective network of self-contained individual associations. This network of connections has value because it can create social capital. We can respond to someone online establishing a thin rapport of shared interest. Maybe a deeper relationship can result. Or, maybe we can connect one another to other people who may be able to help us, or we help them. For that to happen, we must transcend the boundaries of the social media world to create direct relationships.

Our connections do matter when they can develop into one-to-one relationships. Our social connections provide us a way to live in society as more than a function of a mechanistic system of work. Our networks of institutions and of connections are, therefore, points of origin for possibilities of expanding our life experience beyond the passivity of attending to a world that seeks our attention.

Networks of Relationships

A starting point for the understanding of relationships is to look at the people you know and ask:

Who do I know where our relationship is marked by respect, trust, and mutual accountability?

Or to take it one step further.

Who do I know whose relationship to me is marked by openness, vulnerability, sacrifice, and dependability?

Who is it that I can depend upon to be there for me when I need them?

Who is it that knows that I will return that favor?

Most of us have few relationships of this type. Even those are mostly in our families. Rarely at work, sometimes with neighbors, and frequently with people with whom we share recreational activities.

We travel through life interacting with people through the experience of institutions and connections. The problem with this is that it makes it much more difficult for a business, a community, or even a nation to join together to face hard challenges. We look to other people or institutions to take responsibility. We think,

“I just work there. They don’t pay me enough to do anything more than what I am doing.”

For many people, work, their association to the institution where they work is simply an exchange of economic benefit. It isn’t a relationship. It is a contractual agreement.

During the pandemic, working remotely revealed to many workers that they preferred isolation from the social challenges of the workplace. The network of the institution and the network of connections were not strong draws for returning to the office.

I know, because I have been told, that people don’t want the environment of the workplace to become more of a relationship. To them, their work is a job. Nothing more. Respect, trust, and mutual accountability are not that important.

What these patterns of behavior show me is that the real problem isn’t the institution. It isn’t the social climate or even the appeal of working from home. The real issue goes much deeper. It is the question of who are we as the persons who inhabit these networks.

The Person in the Network

This is a big question that I will pick up in more detail in my next post. Until then, let me say this.

The effect that the networks of institutions and the networks of connections (social media) have had upon us is like the herding of livestock. The systems are meant to seduce, pacify, and contain our human nature. These are several steps beyond what is logically the purpose of these networks.

The structure of organizations, ideally, should be designed to develop and release human creativity to fulfill each person’s potential. Yet, for some strange reason, we actually find that human beings are a threat, and therefore, their talent and capabilities should be curbed.

This perception is one of the first observations that I had after the beginning my consulting practice. People would tell me of the boundaries set up to keep them from doing the work they were hired to do.

It reminds me of something that Luke Burgis wrote in his book, Wanting: The Power of Mimetic Desire in Everyday Life.

“Mimetic desire, because it is social, spreads from person to person and through culture. It results in two different movements – two cycles – of desire. The first cycle leads to tension, conflict, and volatility, breaking down relationships and causing instability and confusion as competing desires interact in volatile ways. This is the default cycle that has been most prevalent in human history. It is accelerating today.

It’s possible to transcend that default cycle, though. It’s possible to initiate a different cycle that channels energy into creative and productive pursuits that serve the common good. … the two cycles (are) fundamental to human behavior.”

Our networks are where this behavior finds its context for good and ill.

The pressure we feel to conform to institutional rules and social norms is how systems play off the mimetic desire Burgis, and before him René Girard, describe. Technology increases the opportunity for both cycles of desire to grow.

I have learned that the obstacle that we face that determines whether our networks serve our interests is whether we desire to follow, to imitate others without thought or fear of exclusion. We fall into this mimetic trap that modern institutions and social media platforms seem well-designed to foster. For this reason, I see the question of our humanity as one we must face. Ultimately, it is a question of whether I am a mimetic clone of the broad average of people on social media, or merely a functionary within a system of processes at work.

I am convinced, after a lifetime of intention, that the development of our networks of relationships is how we discover those parts of us that have never been reached either through work or by our social media connections. It is not only how we establish relationships of respect, trust, and mutual accountability. It is also where we discover how we can live lives of meaning and impact in the world.