1. What do you think is the reason this network exists ?

2. Why does it keep operating, what sustains it ?

Answers to the three, taken together, might help identify something inherent or implicit, if nothing explicit is stated.

Yeah, I know that it’s banal but it’s one of those questions that must be asked if we’re gonna talk about things like strategic alignment.

Many (increasingly more ?) of the networked initiatives being developed are by interest groups for interest groups, aimed at a specific purpose or having (creating for themselves, by signing up, engaging wit, etc.) some call-to-action or other. And from the architecture of the blog, wiki, Twitter account, other plug-in web services and what-have-you, it seems clear to me that the networked initiative is asking, by definition, those who sign up, become members, who engage … to align (and act, online) strategically, at least to some explicit degree.

No ?

I’m not certain that this isn’t a sometimes-false dichotomy. I think it can be useful to look at the purpose of the network, and I think we may still be in the too-early days of operating in (more) visible networks to state categorically that it’s clear that networks do not operate in the aggregate ‘on purpose”, and thus may benefit from the strategic alignment of the network members towards that purpose.

I also need to think more about this …

Tribes only have internal communication. Members are only connected to themselves. They are embroiled in us/them, friend/foe battles. They are like silos inside institutions without the institution. They shun efficiency and accountability in favor of their autonomy at all cost.

Institutions nurture tribes inside vertical silos that receive communications, directives, pronouncements from above their level in the hierarchy. They are out of the loop with anything horizontal– other silos, constituencies, institutions, etc. Their communication from on high is a one way street. Back talking is considered to be insubordination, disrespectful, overstepping bounds, etc. Efficiency gets enforced through policies, best practices, coordination meetings, shooting the messenger, etc. Inhabitants of silos lack sight of the big picture, outcome measures, alignment with mission, etc.

Markets nurture tribes of their customers, talent pool, journalists who cover their industry, etc. Market enterprises maintain two way communication up and down their internal chain of command. Higher ups find out what their front line is learning through horizontal communications with customers, employment candidates, journalists, etc. Everyone inside the enterprise shares the big picture, outcome measures, alignment with mission, — that add up to accountability, alignment, etc. Recipients feel served by attention, innovations, responses and changes, not just the “quantity and mass” of deliverables.

Genuine networks nurture tribes as communication nodes, each with a bounty of inbound and outbound connections. Horizontal, two way communications define the network. What occurs by all the back-n-forth transmissions is generative for the immediate participants, but also for any others tapped into the two way transmissions. Efficiencies and accountabilities work themselves out emergently, amidst all that egalitarian collaboration toward shared understandings, solutions, value, etc. Autonomy of each node co-exists with larger purposes, process efficiencies and continually learning from the fire hose of transmissions on the same level.

Thanks for the link and the Jennings/Reid-Dodick curve above. I really like that picture of a “return to autonomy” without a loss of alignment.