Networks, Social Identity, and Learning

Many large organizations are also being deconstructed into systems of smaller components which then form a business or organizational network. Networks are regarded as a significant transformation from ‘vertical bureaucracies’ into ‘horizontal corporations’ (Castells, 1996). One incentive to form networks stems from the virtue of small units in order to avoid the rigidity, lack of focus and anonymity of large-scale organizations. It is argued that small units can more readily become ‘self-organizing’ than can larger units, and hence pursue their own learning initiatives when the need arises (Handy, 1992; Senge, 1997). Another incentive is that networks can provide a flexible means of quickly achieving global reach in both supply chains and markets.

Studies in sociology have for some time addressed the question of how minorities and disadvantaged groups develop a social identity in forming relational networks (Proudford and Nkomo, 2006). However, the question of how social identity is developed across organizational networks so as to encourage learning within them requires more investigation. Networks have been defined in several ways. A commonly accepted definition refers to social units that are loosely or tightly connected through shared activities, common values or interests, whether these units are organizations, groups, or individuals (Brown and Duguid, 2001). While it is relatively easy to understand how a group develops a collective identity, this is less obvious in the case of networks. Groups are organized around a mission or a sense of common purpose. They are contained within geographical boundaries and normally have the facility of visual contact. Organizational networks on the other hand are open ended and physically dispersed, with a membership and scope that may not be clearly demarcated.

A recent type of network which constitutes a form of social organization and has considerable potential for collective learning is the computer-based social network. These networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and MySpace have attracted millions of users. They reveal not only how individuals learn from one another through sharing activities and interests, but also how this helps them construct self-identity. They also provide an example of how social identity is linked to social capital (Smith, Giraud-Carrier, and Purser, 2009) and how certain types of social capital provide opportunities for innovation and learning (Wineman, Kabo, and Davis, 2009). The link between social capital and social identity is clearly made in Bourdieu’s (1984) work. He suggested that social capital is constructed through unique relationships between individuals who recognize their group as possessing distinctive and rare characteristics which are not easily accessible to others. Such groups regulate membership through mechanisms of mutual recognition and acquaintance which provide the basis for inclusion and exclusion.

It is impossible to speak of learning in and through networks without reference to its relational dimensions and how people learn in the process of establishing social connections. Social identity is important to this equation insofar as when people build personal connections they not only outline the contours of the network but also what it stands for. In so doing, they build a common social identity which helps to dissolve barriers to communication and knowledge-sharing. There is evidence that connecting otherwise dispersed people within social networks and enhancing coordination between connected individuals are both predictors of innovation, especially when those people have differential contributions to offer (Obstfeld, 2005; Wineman et al., 2009).

Granovetter (1973) distinguished between networks that are based on strong ties and those that are characterized by weak ties. Strong ties are more intensive in nature; they are sustained through close kinship and friendship links. Weak ties are based on infrequent and impersonal relations. The implication of strong and weak network ties for learning and innovation has attracted interest. Burt (1992, 2004) argues that networks with structural holes, having low connectivity among those in a network, present opportunities for new ideas to be generated, especially if there are brokers who create links between heterogeneous items of information and fill the holes that characterize such networks. He suggests that, by contrast, close networks may create redundant information and encourage conformity, therefore jeopardizing learning (Burt, 2004). Similarly, Ferrary and Granovetter (2009) assume that forming weak ties is essential to learning. They argue that the learning basis of Silicon Valley rests on the development of multiple and heterogeneous connections across networks of different natures. They suggest that dynamic capability is developed as key agents—boundary spanning agents—engage with a multiplicity of ties that support the creation and development of high-tech start-ups. Thus, both the configuration of a network and the social capital it contains are seen as sources of learning. Connectivity appears to be a key factor in a network’s success.

However, while the brokering of structural holes may promote invention, these weak networks may not be so effective in putting innovation into practice (Obstfeld, 2005). The development of strong ties is usually associated with locally embedded learning within a community of practice. ‘Situated learning theory positions a “community of practice” as the context in which an individual develops the practices (including values, norms and relationships) and identities appropriate to that community’ (Handley, Sturdy, Fincham, and Clark, 2006: 642). The notion of a community of practice implies that learning is interdependent with the process of forming a network identity. Forming an identity encourages stability among the central members of the network through the development of trust and commitment, and this is likely to encourage the open communication that enhances learning (Brown and Duguid, 2001). In turn, the satisfaction of achieving learning and new knowledge as a collective product may well enhance the sense of a common social identity (Corley and Gioia, 2003).

Experience to date suggests that achieving learning through organized networks presents a managerial challenge, but one that can be met. In some sectors such as bio-technology, the relevant knowledge for new product development is in any case scattered between research institutes, universities, and bio-tech firms, while the co-operation of venture capital firms is required for financing and that of hospitals or firms specializing in clinical trials is necessary for product development and testing. It is proving possible to co-ordinate networks of these separate organizations into effective learning systems (Powell et al., 1996). Much depends on developing the managerial skills to handle the process so that people do not feel obliged to enact their social identities defensively.