Why one size fits all doesn't work anymore for social networks.

Cliques have been around for centuries. People drawn together in clustered groups through shared interests, social backgrounds or religious beliefs are stronger than ever today especially as talk of lay-offs and recession continue. As the The Economist writes in Joining the Club, every country and region has their own influential clubs including Europe's Opus Dei, America's Ivy League alumni groups and Rotary clubs as well as China's guanxi.

What's interesting is the discussion on whether the proliferation of online social networks will replace traditional exclusive social networks. The Economist does a great job illustrating the value of old-style networks that emphasize trust relationships that accelerate a wide variety of transaction requests, especially complex ones. Two examples cited in China and France are:

"A study of entrepreneurship in China by Yusheng Peng of the Chinese University of Hong Kong showed how kinship networks helped firms protect their property, obtain reliable information and identify opportunities. Social networks can also be speedier than formal systems: in July 2002, for example, when Vivendi, a French conglomerate, was weighed down with debt and needed to raise €3 billion (then $3 billion) in three days, its chief executive at the time, Jean-René Fourtou, turned to a group of bosses who were fellow rugby fans, including Claude Bébéar, then the chairman of the AXA Group, an insurance firm, and the money was secured."

Old-style networks can also facilitate serious wrong doing inside companies operating around hidden networks. The article Software that spots hidden networks, in the Economist reports that "informal cliques often communicate in ways designed to execute a fraud or to cover it up". Such rogue employees are motivated by such behavior, in effect, to protect their jobs and line their own pockets. The now infamous case of Bernie Madoff, sentenced to 150 years in prison this week offers further evidence on the dangers of old-style networking. Madoff's talents lay in his extrodinary ability to read people and exploit their social networks courting investors at rotary clubs through trusted close friends and family referrals. Madoff's list of 14,000 victims ranged from the rich and famous to Ian Thiermann, the oldest investor, who at 90, was forced to get a job after losing his $700,000 in savings.


One benefit of online networks is they support a more open and efficient competitive global business environment compared to closed networks. Online social networks support communities that share information in a highly collaborative and creative manner. As Thomas Friedman pointed out in The World is Flat, whom we engage with is based on a person's access to online communities and collaboration tools. Where they are located becomes less important once shared goals, values and interests are realized.

So what is the optimal solution for enhancing one's social network? This is more an individual's choice about how they feel about their preference for networking. Gen Y will continue in a multi-channel universe using gadgets. Gen X will cross over between new and old communication channels while the Boomers may choose to keep their feet firmly planted in traditional face to face networks.

What is clear is that the complexity involved in solving problems requires today requires increased attention by participating in online and offline channels. Missing a valuable piece of information may end up being very costly. Take a one size fits all approach to networking no longer works. A balanced outlook is likely the best option where you test what works best when solving different tasks of varying complexity.

The Networked Book: reading in pixels and writing for Google

I attended a recent BookCamp on the future of books. It seems clear to most who attended that the book publishing industry is fast moving towards the "networked or open book" much the same as has happened with the portability of music. After reading How the E-Book Will Change the Way We Read and Write by Steven Johnson and The Future of Reading in a Digital World by Clive Thompson, the digital age is on the cusp of reinventing the fundamental concept behind what it means to discover, read and even write books.

The concept of the networked book is interesting because the publishing industry like many others that has begun shifting online is beginning to think and write for Google. In the attention economy, as Johnson writes, "“the unity of the book will disperse into a multitude of pages and paragraphs vying for Google's attention. Writers and publishers will begin to think about how individual pages or chapters might rank in Google's results, crafting sections explicitly in the hopes that they will draw in that steady stream of search visitors. Individual paragraphs will be accompanied by descriptive tags to orient potential searchers; chapter titles will be tested to determine how well they rank. Just as Web sites try to adjust their content to move as high as possible on the Google search results, so will authors and publishers try to adjust their books to move up the list.”

What about the front door versus the side door argument about word of mouth for authors and their books. How much will side-way conversations, comments and annotations by readers shift the balance of influence away influential book reviews in reputable publications as well well as books privileged enough to have their cover seen on shelves in bookstores.

Isn't the reality of the way we discover the networked book the same for people and individuals. The more channels and communities that people and individuals choose to engage in and have a conversation, the more buzz that is created. If the networked book that engages people in the multi-channel universe leads to increased brand and recognition, isn't the same true for the networked individual and organization?

If it is, what will happen to individual and organizations who decline or delay participating and engaging with online communities.

The debate about the right mix of online and offline participation is ongoing. It seems inevitiable that the idea behind the networked book is a worthwhile analogy to way people will choose to interact and engage with one another online and offline in terms of raising their individual brand. Whether it be deep focussed reading in isolation or online interactive chats about a single page, the range of choices for how people choose to digest books will be based on selective preferences that work best for them.

Cinderella Woman’s story and unlikely heroine unites the “crazy ones”.

Do you ever wonder how a person can be moved to tears through someone’s story? What is it in a story that wins over people’s hearts? Robert McKee, a veteran in the story-telling arena (specifically associated with blockbuster Hollywood screenplays) gave an interview in 2003 with Harvard Business Review.

McKee says “stories fulfill a profound human need to grasp the patterns of living, not merely as an intellectual exercise, but within a very personal, emotional experience.”
What makes a good story? Aristotle, in his ancient classic work Poetics, says stories have a beginning, middle and ending. There are complex characters, a plot that sees a reversal of fortune and finally, a lesson learned. This is what McKee refers to as the “inciting event” that throws life out of balance along what was a smooth journey. What fascinates people is the struggle, the uphill battle to restore balance despite opposing forces and scare resources. More often than not, society isn’t all that interested in hearing a person’s story. Judging a book by its cover is so much more convenient. The first impression is often the only one that matters.

Every now and again, first impressions suffer a crushing defeat because someone is given a chance to tell their story at the right time in the right venue. This happened on April 11, 2009 when Susan Boyle was asked on the television show Britains Got Talent, why she hadn’t succeeded as a singer. The emotional story of a 47-year-old unemployed, unmarried woman who has never been kissed and never been given a chance before suggests a ship adrift far at sea with little chance of coming home. Indeed, Susan’s appearance set the scene for a moment where she could reconcile with her detractors and showcase her determination to “rock them” proving that she did have the right stuff starting from the inside out.

Susan’s story coupled with her awe inspiring performance wowed her audience and persuaded them to accept her, celebrate her and share her story around the globe because we’ve all fallen at some point. It then seem quite natural that so many want to share her story as the overwhelming underdog.

Susan is a Cinderella Woman for so many because she offers us a way to prevail in such uncertain times. She is able because of her story to unite the unemployed, the aged, the lonely, the unattractive and the unwanted. Underdogs like Susan Boyle, Paul Potts and Cinderella Man from the Great Depression are often viewed as the crazy ones. What they have in common is an indomitable will to persist and keep telling their story with a smile against all odds just like the the crazy ones did. Here’s to the crazy ones!