The Importance of Using Informal Networks - Essay Example

Name: Institution: Professor: Course: Date: Introduction The title of the work is “The People Who Make Organisation Go – or Stop”. The article was written by Rob Cross and Laurence Prusak. The article got published in June 2002 at the University of Virginia, McIntire School of Commerce, Charlottesville, USA. The People Who Make Organisation Go – or Stop is a very informative and insightful article because the authors expound on the role of the managers. It expounds on the kind of networks used by organisational managers for communication purposes. The author’s Cross and Prusakemphasizes the importance of using informal networks for communication in the organization. However, in my opinion the use of informal networks in organisations is not the best way for communication. The author’s presumption that the use of informal networks in the organisation for communication is flawed because of the inadequacy of the explanation. Summary The main ideas of this article lie of the way managers communicate. Cross and Prusak argues that many senior executives assume informal networks. They regard the informal networks as the invisible enemy. It, therefore, leads to poor decision making and translates to undone work in the organization. The article explains four role-players critical to the performance and productivity of any organization. Cross and Prusak did research, through surveys and observation to come up with this pillars of informal networks. The first role-player stated, is central connectors. They act as a link between people in the informal type of network. These are the individuals that are mainly consulted in the organization. The second is the boundary spanners. Their role is to connect parts of the firm to the related parts. They play the role of being the ambassadors of the organization. Boundary spanners in most cases facilitate the communication between various departments in the organization. The third is the information brokers whose role is to keep the different groups together. Cross and Prusak argues that without them, the informal network cease existence. The final role-player is the peripheral specialist. They handle any specialized expertise required in the informal network. The writers conclude that social network promotes connectivity of the employees in the organization. The authors finalize the article with four dimensions managers can use to improve connections. These dimensions include the following: extent managers seek outside functional areas, the level of managers hierarchy and social relationships, the duration of the connections and finally the extent the interaction are built into managers schedules (Cross and Prusak, 2002 p.112). Analysis The article is not so understandable and persuasive. The authors did not explicitly expound on the benefits of the informal network in an organization. Cross and Prusak (2002) argues that “In this informal network, Alan is clearly the central information source for almost everybody in the network” (Cross and Prusak, 2002 p. 106). The reason I criticize this article is because one individual being the source of information is not good. The central connectors emphasis on the need for an individual who acts as the primary source of information. It is not practical in the real life situation. Companies today have several departments and several employees. One individual being the source of information in the network will not easily work. The departments should do dissemination of information. The boundary spanners have been explained by the writers to act like a connection between the members of the informal network. Cross and Prusak (2002) argue that “As the exhibit “spotting boundary spanners” indicates, Andy plays the role of a boundary spanner in an investment’s bank’s informal network” (Cross and Prusak, 2002 p.109). The use of boundary spanners in Corporations might not entirely succeed. Organizations deal with various issues and challenges. Such problems and challenges require special attention and expertise. The authors explain that senior managers are in a position to use maps, to check the connection of the boundary spanners. In real life situation, this is not practical. Cross and Prusak lack enough concrete evidence to prove the arguments. The information broker and the peripheral specials have not been explained well. Part of the article reads: “Information brokers play a role similar to that of boundary spanners, only they do it with the social network” (Cross and Prusak, 2002 p. 110). The authors, therefore, fail to show clearly the difference between the boundary spanners and the information broker. There is no clear way in which the peripheral specialists have been displayed as experts. I find the information provided in this article inconsistent. Lack of consistency is evident in the kind of surveys and experiments used. The article concludes with the analysis of ways in which managers can improve connections. The authors have just settled on only four areas. The explanations of these points are not sufficient and persuasive enough to the readers. More points on the way of improving managers connection skills and techniques should have been given. This will enable the managers to have several options to make a good selection. Reflection And Conclusion The arguments that I have used to critically analyze this article are based on the thesis statement. The thesis statement states: “The author’s presumption that the use of informal networks in the organisation for communication is flawed because of the inadequacy of the explanation." The arguments I have explained above prove it clearly. The four role-players that include central connectors, boundary spanners, information broker and the peripheral specialist are not persuasive. The authors seem not to have clearly achieved the goals and objectives of the article. The article is supposed to have clearly shown the reader the people who run the organization. Managers are expected to be the key role-players in the organization. They are the ones that ensure that all the policies and regulations that govern the organization is adhered to. In contrast to this expectation, Cross and Prusak divide the role of running the organization to four role-players. Informal networks should have minimal impact compared to the organization's formal network. The readers of this article, therefore, need more clarification on the four role-player issues explained. Communication is essential to any organization. Managers require information to make structured and unstructured decisions. The authors considered that without the boundary spanners the informal network cannot exist. An organization should keep the flow of information regularly. Failure of one employee or one department should have minimal or no impact on the operations of the organization. The article, therefore, is less applicable for the lack of extensive explanation on the informal networks and the people who make organizations Go – or Stop. Reference Cross, R., &Prusak, L. (2002). The People Who Make Organizations Go—Or Stop. Harvard Business Review, 80, 104-112. Read More