Web 2.0 technology is completely changing how we interact online and the way in which modern businesses operate. But with the implementation of this technology, many organisations are experiencing stumbling blocks along the way. Why is it that some organisations are more successful than others in evolving in this direction? I think communication is an important factor.

I remember some years ago, when I was studying psychology, we examined communication structures and investigated which ones were more effective. Bavelas [1] [2] and Leavitt’s [3] research is the foundation for much of this work. They examined these factors about 50 years ago, and produced four models to describe communication structures:

1. Star (aka Wheel)
2. Y, and
3. Line (aka Chain)
4. Circle

Bavelas [1] reported that some configurations were better than others. Specifically:

• Time: The Wheel and Y were considerably faster, on average, than the Chain and Circle. The lack of hierarchical structure in these two models gives individuals greater ability to share information more quickly as each member is only one or two nodes away.

• Messages: The Wheel and Y used the least number of messages to communicate knowledge and information on task completion. The Chain was next, than the Circle (which used quite a bit more).

• Errors: The Wheel, the Y and Chain made the fewest errors in the tasks they were given, while the Circle made the most (however, the Circle had the most error corrections). This is because individuals have access to everyone else, rather than needing to use someone as an intermediary in order to confirm information.

• Satisfaction: The subjects in a the Circle network enjoyed themselves the most, followed by the Chain, the Y and finally the Wheel. This is factor is due to a perception of social equality in the groups’ structure: no one person receives more information than anyone else; and no one person is seen to be more important as a result. Obviously, given social equity is culture-specific, these findings only apply to those cultures low on Hofstede’s Power-Distance index.

• Leadership: The probability that the group had a leader went up in the order: Circle, Chain, Y, and Wheel. In addition, agreement as to who was the leader increased in the same order (it was 100% in the case of the wheel).

• Improvement: Circle people were very likely to say that they could have done things more efficiently and that was missing was “a system”. Wheel people did not feel they could improve much.

Etienne Wenger, a globally recognised thought leader in the field of learning theory and its application to business, suggests [4] that Communities of Practice create horizontal connections, not vertical ones of the type we see in the Chain Model reflected in the top-down structures in many traditional organisations. The implication is that the traditional hierarchical structures reflected in Chain communication models can impede the ability for individuals to communicate in order to work collaboratively, and, in turn, render the technology employed to collaborate ineffective.

For organisations willing to change to more horizontal communication models as a part of their organisational culture, task completion will be faster and more efficient because knowledge and information can be more easily transferred between members. If change is not forthcoming, then the adoption of social computing tools is likely to fail.

To achieve this end, therefore, the message is clear:

1. Change your top-down communication styles to something that is more horizontal — this doesn’t mean no hierarchy or leadership, but choosing a style that reflects both the social and task needs of the individuals, so that all members of the community of practice can help each other.
2. Encourage individuals to communicate and collaborate across organisational silos — individuals are rarely just a member of one community. Encouraging knowledge and information sharing across these communities, using ’s Bavela’s model, will likely decrease errors in task completion.
3. Empower individuals with tools that not only help with their work, but also facilitate horizontal communication — communication within and between communities doesn’t necessarily mean it has no work value. Organisations are even starting to see that social environments like Facebook serve as excellent corporate intranets.

M

- – - -

[1]. Bavelas, A. (1950) Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. Journal of Acoustical Sociology of America., 22, 725-730

[2]. Bavelas, A. (1948). A mathematical model for group structures. Applied Anthropology, 7, 16-30

[3]. Leavitt, H. J. (1951) Some effects of certain communications patterns on group performance, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 38-50

[4]. Wolf, P. (2003) Interview with Etienne Wenger on Communities of Practice, 3 Nov. Online at: <www.knowledgeboard.com/…/item.cgi?id=458>, accessed on 4 Feb 2008.