Three kinds of networks

Johnnie Moore has a great post today that discusses how people act within three distinct forms of networking.   Along the way he points out that in the above diagram we have too much A and B masquerading as C.

IN the discussion he praises the establishment of seemingly redundant links in a network, which is something I am heavily in favour of as well.   The more ways you have to work between people, the more creative you can be and more truly community you are. Johnnie rolls this into his observation of how people behave in Open Space events:

First, it’s really important if you want to talk about something to put it up for discussion without concern for it’s popularity as a topic. And second, be wary of criticising how others choose to engage: are you in effect demanding they conform to your personal view of what’s important, as if yours is the only one?

I think the picture that Johnnie uses to illustrate this is very important.   Often in talking with organizations they want to move to a more networked way of being but in reality they choose just to decentralize.   This intermediate stpe has several characteristics.   It is certainly a shift to a networked organization and it invites a community to arise within.   It also preserves some of the weak points of a centralized organization, which includes reliance on a hub, meaning that the system does not have the kind of resilience that a true network has.

The trick I think is seeing that the network actually does exist in several organizational settings, and lives happily alongside a bureaucratic structure which moves resources and accountability around.   It is the active network within siloed structures that invites and encourages innovation to emerge.   Open Space events are a great way to make the network visible and to put it to use.