The Power of People on the Edges
For innovation to happen, we need people on the edges of networks.
They are the bridges; the weak ties that connect different networks and ecosystems together.
It is these people over whom new information travels most effectively, and almost exclusively; sociologists define them as weak, bridging ties in social networks.
They connect the dots — introduce new people, introduce ideas, disrupt ossified thinking.
They live in between the silos; the undefined spaces where possibilities exist.
Weak tie networks are scattered, chaotic, and untidy. They allow for randomness and serendipity.
Strong tie networks that lack weak bridging ties become dense, closed, echo chambers. Their lack of exposure to new people and networks insulates them from new ideas or approaches.
It is said that innovation happens at the edge of networks; innovation requires people who do not think alike to think together.
Too many of the structures designed to support innovation instinctively create closed networks: you have to be a member, you have to win a place, or pay to join, be selected, or already be in the network.
These networks create boxes of people, neatly packaged, easy to understand and to control. This feels safe. But it is the gaps between the boxes where innovation thrives.
The people at the edges of the networks, who bridge, tend not to sit still. They can appear unfocussed, not serious, not committed to your network because they are in so many other networks too.
It is often hard for them to engage because they do not want to commit. They know, instinctively, that if they commit they get drawn into the heart of one network and cease to be able to bridge into other networks.
These people are often generalists; polymaths. They may have fingers in many pies. Our society favours people who specialise, focus, and choose one path. These people are important, they execute and follow through. But they need the generalists at the edges of networks to bring the disruption and novelty.
We do not celebrate generalists enough, and we find it hard to place them. We try to engage them by offering them jobs or contracts. Often, these contracts have clauses that stop them engaging with other networks –non-competes, non-disclosures. Jobs want to own people, to tie them down.
We need more ways to engage with generalists; to empower the people who have the unique skills that let them occupy multiple networks, and bridge between them. What forms of engagement could we create that engage them but don’t tie them down?
Non-Execs, Honorary Fellowships, Advisory roles do this well. But we need more. We also need to confront an instinctive tendency of organisations, especially low-risk ones like much of the public sector, to feel threatened by people who do not commit completely, who just want to be half in. People who are just slightly involved are really useful. You undermine that by tying them down.
We need more undefined roles; ways for these generalist, weak tie, network bridges to be engaged without hampering them with too many KPIs, job descriptions, and structures, so they can continue to roam freely along and across the edges of networks.
We need to understand and celebrate the specialist generalists and the people at the edge of networks.
This is based on PhD research into the role of social networks in innovation.
