Understanding Conflicting Community Relationships with Network Theory
On my podcast, The Hackathon Podcast, I often talk to Hackathon organizers, participants, mentors, and judges about their events. We naturally talk about success stories but what interests me the most is what’s happening when teams break down. I believe by asking these questions in a Hackathon event we can begin to understand the source of disfunction in larger teams in greater depth.
I have begun to develop some ideas that have been inspired by my observations and conversations.
I believe that some communities and community members naturally conflict, but more importantly, there is a direct effect on every other member.
This is best illustrated:
I’m not an expert in network science but can’t help but I believe there are very strong connections between some of the principles and how they express themselves in practice in Hackathons.
In this graph, I have Donald Trump, Kayne West, and Barack Obama. They can be considered nodes and the relationship between them can be considered edges.
Edges are not just a hint to their relationship, they can contain properties that describe their relationship.
I’m sure we all know that Trump and Obama are not the best of friends and it is possible that the relationship will remain that way for a long period of time however, this provides an interesting dilemma for Kanye. He has to pick a side, Trump or Obama.
Direct relationships are conditional on another direct relationship
This means the more positive the relationship Kanye has with Trump, the more negative the relationship he will with Obama and the reverse.
It is socially safer for Kanye West to choose a side than to “play the fence” even though he may not want to pick a side.
What does this mean for facilitators?
This is the most important part and I don’t have an answer. I advocate for diversity in firms and Hackathons. Neurodiversity, gender diversity, ethnic diversity, religious diversity, and more. The reality is that this is easier to advocate than to execute in practice. Facilitating diverse talent will mean members from different demographics will naturally conflict for varying reasons. Both sides of the conflict may bring exceptional talent to the table. It the facilitator's role to manage/ moderate the organic dysfunction where everybody.
To date, I believe firms have attempted to manage conflict by prioritizing the corporate identity rather than truly acknowledging the individual for who they are. This is an attempt to create a new unified identity as a way to ignore individual differences.
Trump, Obama, and Kayne each have their unique advantages and disadvantages within a team and by creating a new identity, a facilitator does reduce the impact of the disadvantages but they also reduce the individual advantages that make them an effective member of a team. If a facilitator does nothing then Kanye is forced to choose a side and has to assimilate to Trump or Obama. My suggested ideal for facilitators is to create an environment where Kanye doesn’t have to choose even when Obama and Trump have a negative relationship. This may be what it means to manage and moderate organic dysfunction.
I don’t even know if this is possible and contradicts my earlier premise and in some sense human nature.
Notes/ Self-directed questions
I think there’s a difference between a weak positive relationship and a strong positive relationship. There is also a difference between a weak negative relationship and a strong negative relationship. Not to mention a relationship that may be indifferent.
Does “an enemy of my enemy is my friend” always hold true granted these initial thoughts have substance?
Do homophily and/or heterophily influence Kanye West’s relationship between Obama and Trump.
Given that Obama and Trump have had a consistent negative relationship. What would inspire Kanye West to “change alliances”?