2
Chapter 1. Introduction
Organizations can form relationships with other organizations too, and some of
the forces that create relationships between individuals are in play in organizational
networks as well. However, the relationship between organizations exists on two
levels: the formal level which may be instantiated in a contract, or a memorandum
of understanding, or a buying and selling process, or something less precise; but
also on an informal level involving relationships between individuals inside each
organization. The strength of the relationship between the organizations exists apart
from the individuals in one sense (if one buyer resigns, another will be appointed to
replace him or her), but relies on these individuals in another (if they get on, the two
organizations may be able to interact more smoothly).
It is also difficult for one individual to have both a positive and negative relationship to another individual because it creates cognitive dissonance; but the relationship between two organizations can easily have both a positive and negative component, embodied by different sets of individuals within them. “Social networks” of
organizations are therefore a useful construct, but they will not always behave in the
same ways as social networks of individuals.
The analysis of social networks has revealed many properties about the way
that humans, and human groups, operate and interact. Social networks exist at many
different scales: within a single organization, in a town, or within a country; and
they are of different sizes, from a few dozen individuals to several billion. It is also
useful to distinguish between a social network whose relationships are created by
face-to-face contact, versus one where the relationships are formed and built in an
online environment, whether on a social media platform or by exchanging emails or
text messages.
Broadly speaking, social network properties seem to apply regardless of scale,
size, and modality, probably because they are driven by, or perhaps limited by, the
cognitive and social properties that make us human. However, there are some special situations where the processes that drive social network formation may be qualitatively different. For example, a group of criminals may form an unusual social
network because they explicitly consider how to make it difficult for law enforcement to find and track them. They may therefore decide to limit their connections to
one another, for example by forming small subgroups that are only connected to one
another by a few connections. Such exceptional social networks may have special
properties.
Here are some examples of the properties of human social networks that emerge
from the way that individual connections are made:
• The diameter (the distance between the furthest separated nodes) of a typical
social network is logarithmic in the number of nodes it contains, rather than
linear. When social networks were first considered, it seemed natural and
intuitive that they should be mesh-like, as transportation networks are. After
all, they exist on the surface of the earth. Milgram’s famous experiments [60,
99], which led to the meme of “six degrees of separation”, showed that this
intuition is misleading: a surprisingly large number of individuals in social
networks have relationships to those who are “far away” in the natural, planar
Chapter 1. Introduction
Organizations can form relationships with other organizations too, and some of
the forces that create relationships between individuals are in play in organizational
networks as well. However, the relationship between organizations exists on two
levels: the formal level which may be instantiated in a contract, or a memorandum
of understanding, or a buying and selling process, or something less precise; but
also on an informal level involving relationships between individuals inside each
organization. The strength of the relationship between the organizations exists apart
from the individuals in one sense (if one buyer resigns, another will be appointed to
replace him or her), but relies on these individuals in another (if they get on, the two
organizations may be able to interact more smoothly).
It is also difficult for one individual to have both a positive and negative relationship to another individual because it creates cognitive dissonance; but the relationship between two organizations can easily have both a positive and negative component, embodied by different sets of individuals within them. “Social networks” of
organizations are therefore a useful construct, but they will not always behave in the
same ways as social networks of individuals.
The analysis of social networks has revealed many properties about the way
that humans, and human groups, operate and interact. Social networks exist at many
different scales: within a single organization, in a town, or within a country; and
they are of different sizes, from a few dozen individuals to several billion. It is also
useful to distinguish between a social network whose relationships are created by
face-to-face contact, versus one where the relationships are formed and built in an
online environment, whether on a social media platform or by exchanging emails or
text messages.
Broadly speaking, social network properties seem to apply regardless of scale,
size, and modality, probably because they are driven by, or perhaps limited by, the
cognitive and social properties that make us human. However, there are some special situations where the processes that drive social network formation may be qualitatively different. For example, a group of criminals may form an unusual social
network because they explicitly consider how to make it difficult for law enforcement to find and track them. They may therefore decide to limit their connections to
one another, for example by forming small subgroups that are only connected to one
another by a few connections. Such exceptional social networks may have special
properties.
Here are some examples of the properties of human social networks that emerge
from the way that individual connections are made:
• The diameter (the distance between the furthest separated nodes) of a typical
social network is logarithmic in the number of nodes it contains, rather than
linear. When social networks were first considered, it seemed natural and
intuitive that they should be mesh-like, as transportation networks are. After
all, they exist on the surface of the earth. Milgram’s famous experiments [60,
99], which led to the meme of “six degrees of separation”, showed that this
intuition is misleading: a surprisingly large number of individuals in social
networks have relationships to those who are “far away” in the natural, planar