On the shape of verbal networks in organizations - )

Organization Studies, Sept-Oct, 2001 by Reed E. Nelson

Abstract

Almost without exception, organizations contain a pyramid-shaped formal hierarchy of some sort. It is also known that organizations harbour frequent informal relations that do not necessarily follow patterns set by the formal hierarchy. While the shape and features of formal hierarchies are known and understood by most members of organizations, very little is known -- by either academics or practitioners -- about the shape and attributes of these informal relations. This paper explores regularities in the shape of verbal ties -- a relationship that escapes most formal regulation -- across the hierarchies of diverse organizations. Results indicate that the verbal networks of the upper echelons of organizations rarely follow a classic hierarchical pattern. Rather, several different morphologies surface. The most common of these regularities -- the centre-periphery pattern -- has been frequently observed in large human systems, including tribal and modern societies, national and international economies, industri es, and political systems, but has not been studied inside organizations.

Descriptors: networks, hierarchy, centre-periphery

Introduction

In an effort to control and channel human behaviour, organizations mandate certain types of relations between their members. Employees are required to inform, approve, oversee, request, discuss, and coordinate their actions with other employees on a regular basis. Viewed collectively, these relations assume configurations or shapes, the most common of which is the pyramidical (stair step) hierarchy. When we look at organizations spatially, initially, we almost always see a pyramid of some sort. To be sure, such pyramids vary from organization to organization, but they are ubiquitous. For example, Henry Mintzberg has probably done as much as anyone to increase the subtlety with which we view organization structure, yet all of his organizational types contain hierarchies of some sort. His work identifies a variety of arrangements, including the simple structure, the machine bureaucracy, the professional bureaucracy, the divisionalized form, and the adhocracy (Mintzberg 1979). All these configurations, however, have a top, a bottom that is larger than the top, and connecting relations in between -- in sum, they are pyramids, albeit with more subtleties and variations than traditional studies have observed.

As important and ubiquitous as formal hierarchical relationships are, they are not the only types of tie that connect people in organizations. Friendship ties, for instance, can have great impact, as can reciprocal obligations arising from political alliances, or even membership in company athletic teams or romantic liaisons (Krackhardt 1992). Although there is much literature that analyzes and proposes ways of eliminating or humanizing hierarchy, there is relatively little work that empirically examines the configurations of relations in organizations that are not a part of, or mandated by, the formal hierarchy. Of course, a venerable tradition of inquiry, ranging from executive memoirs to Marxist and postmodern analyses, identifies ways in which formal organization is subverted, adapted or enhanced through a variety of often unintended or devious means (Barnard 1938; Burawoy 1979; Collinson 1994; Covaleski et al. 1998; Crozier 1964; Dalton 1959; Rothlisberger and Dickson 1961). Such studies, however, typica lly focus on the processes by which formal organization is attenuated rather than the shape or structure of the relations which may develop as a result.

The present study attempts to look beyond the formal hierarchy to consider the shape of actual or 'realized' personal networks in organizations. By realized personal networks, I mean the daily face-to-face or telephone contacts that take place between individuals, whether or not such contacts are influenced by the formal mandates of organization structure. Mintzberg (1973) observed that managers spend much of their time in short verbal encounters, so the study of verbal contacts provides access to the dominant form of interaction in organizations. Moreover, scholars from Simmel (1955) onwards have noted the psychosocial importance of direct interaction, especially frequent face-to-face interaction (Granovetter 1973; Homans 1950) as opposed to 'cooler' media like memoranda, letters, or E-mail (Daft and Lengle 1984). Also, the less constrained, 'off the record' nature of personal encounters escape both the guarantees and responsibilities of formal arrangements, so they are likely to reflect dynamics not envisio ned by the formal structure. It seems, therefore, that personal, verbal contacts would be a good place to start an investigation of configurations of relations that may stand in counterposition to the formal hierarchy.

There are at least two reasons why such investigation is important to organization studies. First, the study of verbal networks may suggest realistic alternatives to hierarchical forms for those who object to hierarchy on philosophical or technical grounds (Bennis 1973; Ehlin 1995; Iannello 1992; Thayer 1973). It is also important to have a working knowledge of the collective shape of personal networks in order to begin to assess the degree to which these structures are more or less oppressive or efficient than formal hierarchy. Those who would dismantle formal hierarchy would do well to verify, or at least speculate about the nature of mechanisms likely to become prominent in its vacuum.