Five things to pay attention to as institutions diminish and personal access becomes king.
Everyone’s interested in human networks these days. How to make them work, how to structure them, how to facilitate collaborations within and between them, who to invite in. In the 1950s, 60s and 70s, people worked in big companies and held long-term contracts with them, their relationship with other institutions understood largely in terms of competition.
Today, we work and affiliate in networks, a mindset that assumes fluidity and collaboration across sectors and ultimately believes that human connections have the power to change the world.
Take this video presented at the Skoll World Forum back in 2013. Entitled “Dare to Imagine,” it’s an 8-minute snapshot of the ethos, applied specifically to the aims of social entrepreneurs and system change. From Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington to PayPal and Tesla superstar Elon Musk, recognizable faces in the age of technological disruption exhort an openness to solutions from unexpected quarters, all-in participation and the importance of scaling “impact” over scaling an organization.
Or take this popular TED talk on collaborative consumption given by Rachel Botsman. It’s a clear and punchy presentation on what’s enabled businesses like Uber and AirBnB to thrive – a willingness to trust in strangers and a desire for direct exchange and meaningful human contact.
It’s the religion of the innovators, fueled by technology, that has brought about a sea change in how the educated class understands the means of production and interacts with the marketplace. Lean and flexible teamwork is now preferred to hierarchical lines of delivery. Access is more important than ownership. Cross-sector learning is valued above domain expertise.
For the industry leaders and educated young who are most apt to think in these terms, connectivity is king. User-friendly platforms and “curation” broadly understood are goods in high demand – the community has become the content. Peer-to-peer exchanges, whether in learning or goods & services, are reducing the need for middlemen. People move from job to job increasingly detached from the institutions listed on their resumes – a longer-standing affiliation is instead found in auxiliary professional networks charted on platforms like LinkedIn or in membership groups of like-minded yet cross-sector talent, oriented around a core set of ideas or societal problem.
As the pace of change has accelerated, 20th century hierarchies have flattened to accommodate a more fluid structure that’s nimble and efficient, and there’s a lot to commend. The world is a more creative, flexible and possibility-filled place because individuals can eschew the institutional straps of their fathers and collaborate with looser ties. Options for solving ever-thornier problems have mushroomed both in solution combinations and the sources for their delivery. User-generated platforms convey a sense of inclusion. Freelancers abound. There’s an air of magical possibility: With the ability to connect to others – any other – so easily, a Pandora’s box of creative breakthroughs seems always within our reach … if only we figure out how to organize the overlapping rings of relationships.
But, recently, as growing volumes of ink have been spilt exploring a more tangible manifestation of this brave new world – the sharing economy – I’ve wondered if we’ve reached an uncharted step between the potential that networks and platforms create and the substance (and sustainability) they actually afford. The explosive popularity of direct exchanges through Bitcoin, AirBnB, TaskRabbit and Kickstarter confirms the wonders of instantly connecting one person’s need with another’s time. But this economy’s under-institutionalized pattern of activity also reveals some limits of a world increasingly enamored with connectivity for its own sake.
I’m just going to mention a few concerns – not so much to denigrate a wave of thinking, working and relating of which I’m also a beneficiary, but rather to prompt some questions that get at the need to think institutionally about the very arrangements that are in the midst of disrupting institutions historically understood.
First, a concern for durability and commitment. Joel Stein said it well in his recent Time cover piece: “We’ve moved from conspicuous consumption to conspicuous experience.” While he meant it in the context of today’s sharing economy (e.g. instead of wanting to own the next car we’re more likely to hire a car to take us to the next experience), it’s a sensibility that applies also to networked thinking, where access is the first and celebrated good. Access to certain people, access to different experiences and ideas. And access, while a necessary door to opportunity, can quickly become a drug, which, pursued for its own thrills starts to yield diminishing returns. Its addicts become unfocused, more means- than ends-oriented, and defined by a spray of fleeting encounters, less a durable commitment to building a consistent stream of value over time. This is as true in the professional realm as it is in the personal.
Second, a concern for transcendence. I mean this not in the spiritual sense but in the belonging sense – to feel like each of us belongs to something larger than ourselves. Whether that thing is a creed, a craft or an institution that predates us and will outlast us, our identities are shaped and sustained by the who’s and what’s we are investing in and sacrificing for. It’s much harder to feel this way toward a network, which relies on the instrumental urge between individuals – or even groups of individuals – to leverage their relationships with one another for mutual gain. And that gain can serve a much wider world, surely, but the collaborations are typically atomized, not primarily accountable to the founding platform from which they drew their capital.
Anne Snyder is a member of the Humane Pursuits editorial board. She is currently living in Houston, Texas, where she is studying the assimilation patterns of the city’s growing immigrant population while also working for the Laity Lodge Leadership Initiative. She has started a biweekly column for the Orange County Register and freelances elsewhere. Before moving to Houston she worked in the Op-Ed department of The New York Times in Washington, DC, and before that at World Affairs Journal and the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Originally from Boston but given the cross-cultural bug from a childhood spent in Hong Kong and Australia, she holds a B.A. from Wheaton College (IL) and an M.A. from Georgetown University.