A long time ago (the year 2000), some colleagues and I wrote an article in which we compared task groups to communities and networks. Unfortunately I can't find the article online, so I'm not able to link to it. I was reminded to our comparison when I was reading a Dutch management book about networks.
In our description, a network was about connections and had a 'loose' shape, its boundaries are not fixed. Compared to a community or a task group that has more fixed boundaries. With this in mind I found it hard to read the book initially, as I was constantly comparing the way network was described in the book and our thoughts about it.The definition of a network in the book was: "a joint effort of individuals, organisations or small groups that are connected temporarily and equally to an assignment, a theme or challenge". Interestingly enough, the definition suggests to be in the area where we would position communities or even task groups.
The examples confused me even more. They were a mix of all three types that we tried to distinguish. I think the book took a far more overarching definition of network, anything that connects people and has a purpose. A community is a network, as well as a task group. It's about connections.
Of course, it's a comparison of definitions and nobody is right or wrong here. To be able to read the book, I really had to let go of my old picture of networks. For example, when the book discusses the topic of 'leadership'. In my image of networks, there is no real leader, although I agree that each group will have an implicit leader.
(Note that the picture I selected reflects my 'definition' of a network, the picture of the authors of the book would be different)
Comments