Little by little, informal networks are becoming mainstream. Ubiquitous Internet access is also making networking more important every day. Beyond our ever increasing fascination for informal networks, one may still rightfully wonder whether networking is something new or a fad or even something which always existed and is key to human beings living in congregations

I have seen many examples like this where – in order to make every day operations work – one relies heavily on certain individuals who have managed to make themselves irreplaceable. In that case, such employees/managers either wilfully or subconsciously are potentially causing great trouble for their co-workers or even their clients. Should they be unavailable, day-to-day business is therefore grinding to a halt, which is unacceptable.

One may believe in, and even encourage, the power of individuals in a group, but processes is what makes a company work at the end of the day. No processes work without skills, but also no people should be encouraged to work – unless exceptionally – outside of processes. This is a very critical limitation of informal networks that one should always, bear in mind and it’s not always true that the interest of a small group of people matches that of the organisation to which they belong.

III b- Second limitation: informal and formal network

If informal networks are very popular, I think it is very understandable because they are based on skills appraisal between peers, it means that anyone who is confident enough in his/her abilities may be able to join such a network. However, this does not mean that informal networks are superior by value to their more formal counterparts. The most obvious form of formal networks is the old school-boys networks. Schools often facilitate such networks of alumni, but the latter very often create their own networks within the main alumni association. Other formal networks – some of them official – may also cross fertilise these alumni networks.

Very often, you will hear people or even the media fantasize about such formal networks; mainly those which are getting closer to secret society status. I would say that many of these fantasies are on the fringe or even inspired by urban legends and I will not cover them. However, such formal networks exist and, like it or not, informal networks are not always compatible with them. Formal networks are often exclusive. They are also based upon a very clear set of rules – not forcibly committed to paper – which state that members should help each other and also how they should behave with one another. Being part of a formal network triggers a few obligations and members have to comply.

Obviously, this state of fact does not interfere – at least theoretically – with the development of informal networks. Both can and do co-exist, but interests may be conflicting.

III c- Third limitation: Informal networks do not spring from top-down decisions

Top-down decisions in order to decree that people should work in informal networks do not make sense. Spontaneity cannot be artificially generated. It’s a contradiction in terms. Likewise, it is not always easy to convince people that they should join your or somebody else’s network. All employees do not feel so excited to work off the beaten track. Many of us would rather wait for Management to give the go-ahead, even if it’s just another excuse for them to procrastinate because they know that all initiatives do not come from the top. Not all of us despite hierarchies and their habit of slowing change down. On the contrary, many an employee will find comfort and solace when they hide in the shade of bureaucracy. To such people, technocratic rigidity is always better and less risky than initiative, chaos and uncertainty.