"The drawbacks of networks scarcely matter if the network isn’t interested in systemic change—if it just wants to frighten or humiliate or make a splash—or if it doesn’t need to think strategically. But if you’re taking on a powerful and organized establishment you have to be a hierarchy."
When reading this quote in the New Yorker article, one thing immediately came to mind -- the Occupy movement. One of the biggest criticisms that the movement received was that there was no leader, and barely any organization. There was barely even a cause, or a set goal that they were trying to accomplish. Their idea was to advocate for change, but they had no operational definition of what change meant to them. They probably could have gotten away with this and made a bigger splash if they had simply had a leader.
This relates back to the experiment we did in class with the missing symbol. Generally speaking, a group with a leader is more effective at communicating, and there is a much higher chance that the relevant information will get to all the people who need to hear it in the most timely manner. If the occupy movement had been able to communicate the information about ideas, protests, etc. through some sort of chain of command and a formal communication channel that unified the members there would have been a much greater effect.
In communication classes we talk about the importance of the grapevine, or informal communication in an organization, and there is no denying it is powerful; however, it cannot be the ONLY form of communication because no one will ever be able to keep track of who knows what. The networks cannot be random, they must be organized to ensure that messages are received by the people who are supposed to get them.
No comments:
Post a Comment